Are authors way too critical of other authors?

[Nateskate]

I'm a guitarist. As a guitarist, I hated the band "K.I.S.S", though I love the show about Gene Simons family. The world made them billionaires, but from a technical standpoint it all sounded badadada boring to me. So I could never see them the way a fan would. And yet, I might love an obscure guitarist that played nothing popular.

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

I'm wondering if any of you agree? I'm not saying authors can't offer great ideas, because they can. But I think they would take the equivalent of a beloved "guitar-lick" and because they can do it better, look at it with disdain. In a sense, Tolkien picked apart some of his friend, C.S. Lewis's writings which were beloved by his fans.

Do you think this is true? Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

[Maxinquaye]

I don't think so. Then, I don't think it's respectful to say that someone can't write, if they really can't write. *shrug*

If I picked up a guitar and expected to be entitled to Jean Simmon's success because of that, without ever having played a guitar before but because society should respect musicians, I would hope someone said as bluntly as possible that "since you can't play a pure note on that thing, you should do something else before you make a fool of yourself."

It's the same with writing. It's the same with novels.

There will be different genres that are more or less interesting, but across all genres and writing styles, there is craft and talent, and it is obvious who has it and who does not. But for some reason, since most people in - at least - the west can read and write there is this notion that most everyone can write creatively.

I don't think it's disrespectful to take craft and talent seriously and laud those who possess it, and take the ones that don't aside and tell them to do something else.

[sunandshadow]

I've encountered so many intelligent readers who like totally opposite writing techniques and styles than I do, and the same for visual arts, that I don't think there's any such thing as "good technique". But I think writers make better beta readers than non-writers because a fellow writer can imagine how they would do it differently, while a non-writer can only tell you if they don't like something, they can't usually imagine what they would like better.

[seun]

I read as a reader. I can take my writer hat off enough to appreciate a well-written, interesting book. Saying that, I have no problem with calling a book crap if it is.

[Sevvy]

I think it depends on the writer. Some writers can be nice to each other, and other writers need to bash to elevate their own writing self-esteem.

As to the critique thing, I think the reason that writer's can seem harsher critics is because they see more things that other people might. For instance, I can't critique visual art very well, because I know very little about it. I wouldn't focus on things like brush strokes, how the lighting is being portrayed, color schemes, subject, negative space, etc. I'd just go "I do/don't like it."

However, if I'm looking at someone else's writing, well, I can spot all sorts of things that a non-writer might not see at all. So, I don't think we mean to be harsh or nitpick, but we know what it takes to make a great piece of writing, and this person asked us to help them create a great piece of writing.

[ajkjd01]

Have I had critiques from published authors that I thought they were hacking for the fun of hacking my work? Yup.

Have I had graceful and thoughtful critiques, even if they were painful, from published authors and unpublished authors who really added to my work by their suggestions? Yup.

I think that critiquing is a skill, just like writing is a skill and storytelling is a skill. Someone might be a great storyteller, but suck at grammar. A grammar Nazi might have to really work at the pieces of their story. And just because you can do both of those things does not necessarily mean that you are good at showing others where they've gone wrong.

Of course, if you can't write at all, it's hard to tell people where they've gone wrong in writing...

I think that I've found it easier to pick out things in popular novels that don't work for me as a reader now that I've critiqued for friends and written and edited my own fiction. I might be a more demanding reader now, of anything I write, because I do so much of that (I belong to two critique groups, and go to multiple conferences every year).

That's why I think it's good to have at least one critique partner or beta reader who is a writer, published or not, and at least one that is just a reader. You'll get different perspectives that way.

[IdiotsRUs]

I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

They tend to be, but the questions they raise need asking - even if they answer is, actually I don't need/ want to change that bit. Just because a beta hacks hell out of a certain something doesn't mean I have to delete it. It may mean that I have to alter it, or I may think 'No, that works just as I wanted it to - as evidenced by their reaction :D' or I might think 'Yes, but that's just overthinking it' and do nothing.

But they make way better critters because of this very thing. I have a non writer friend who I show everything to first. He never offers very much insight apart from a bit of 'dragged a bit here' or whathaveyou. But if he does notice a problem he often doesn't know why it's a problem. Mainly I use him to convince myself it doesn't suck huge big donkey balls before I give it to someone else for a more incisive critique.

Writers - or rather good critters, regardless of whether they write or not, and some writers are better than others at critting - - will rip it apart, and then help you see how to put it back together again afterwards.

[gothicangel]

I can't help it. I'm a Scottish Literature academic in-training and a writer of fiction. :D

[ClaudiaGray]

Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things. This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

[Don Allen]

I think the main difference in your scenario might be the physical talent it takes to play an instrument as opposed to the determination and dedication it takes to produce a book.
...And before somebody goes off about the time it takes to be a great musician, stop yourself, Stop... What I'm saying is that assuming a musician can play and a writer can write, it becomes easier to fault a musician for playing poorly than a writer for producing a bad book, because anyone who has attempted to create a novel or non-fiction piece has to put an enormous amount of time into that ONE piece of work where as a musician (other than a complicated classical piece) generally can produce a piece of good work in far less the time. Hence, I may not like the subject material of an author, and I certainly don't like authors that write standard formatted material based on their previous success, but I do respect any author who has managed to get a work published.

[Don Allen]

xxx

[LuckyH]

I think that a writer and a critic are two entirely different animals, with totally different roles in life. I’m a writer and shy away from any situation where I am asked to judge a fellow writer, because I’m not qualified to fulfil that role.

I feel qualified to pass an occasional comment on a writing forum, but always make it clear that I’m posting as part of an interesting discussion, not with any ability as a literary critic.

Who am I to judge fellow writers? I can be pig-headed and ignorant, enthralled by my own perceived wisdom, and just because I wrote a few well-received essays in my younger days and have had some books published, don’t feel that my experience qualifies me to pass judgment on a young writer who writes of vampires falling in love with humans, or horrific aliens eating babies for breakfast.

Having said that, I like nothing better than a literary discussion.

[M.Austin]

Yes. Sometimes I hate it, especially if you see trends or any situation you can predict. Back in the day I would've been shocked at a certain event, but now it seems lame, dried up, and over-used.

It has its good points though. I really, really enjoy a well-written novel.

[Namatu]

Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things.When beta'ing, this can be helpful because you can - in theory - give the author constructive feedback on why such-and-such isn't working.

This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.I do agree with this. There are times, as a reader, that I'm distracted by something in the text that turns on my internal writer or editor. Once on, it doesn't go back off. While this has made me more picky of what I choose as a reader, when I do just sit and read, I don't care so much about the adverbs so long as the story pulls me along. That's not to say I don't pay attention to adverbs in my own writing - which is to say that writers are more attuned to these sorts of things when taking a critical look at something, and this feed back into point number one.

As writers, we are studying a craft. We'll look at bestsellers and notice all the ways in which the author violated the "rules", and where the story doesn't work. But as a general reader who may be looking for a story to carry him along without much thought required on his part, these things are far less important.

[Phaeal]

This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

Like a certain current Brownfest.

Also quite true, what ajkjd01 said: Critiquing is a skill. A good writer does not automatically make a good beta. After acquiring the craft of "first responder" editing, a good beta goes into each job with one motive: to help. Any other motive is likely to be self-serving or destructive or both.

If you want to show off or put others down, don't beta. Become a critic! :e2teeth:

Another thing: writers in general and beta-writers in particular DO need to recognize that not all writing needs to shine -- the bestseller list proves that again and again. A lot of writing just gets the story told, and that satisfies most readers.

But reckon not only the need. Writers don't have to LIKE inferior or mediocre writing. They shouldn't settle for mediocrity themselves or, if doing a beta, settle for mediocrity in the MS under their care. A commercial book that is also written well can only gain readers it would otherwise miss.

I don't know. I often wonder about successful books that I find poorly written. Were the author and editors too cynical to care? Did they not see the problems? Would they have welcomed an incisive beta-reading or discounted it? Is "good enough" really good enough? If sufficient readers actually are happy with hamburger, should we try to serve them filet mignon?

Excuse me. I need to surface for air after all those deep musings. ;)

[Suzan]

Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

I like your analogy. In fact, I was watching American Idol last night, and still moping over the rejection I'd gotten on a full earlier that day. It was one of those, "you are a beautiful and compelling writer, but..." sort of things, when I heard one of the judges on Idol say to the contestant who'd just finished singing, "Dawg, you have a GREAT voice, but that song choice, man–it was all wrong." Personally, I had loved the song choice.

Just because you have a great voice doesn't mean everyone's going to love your song. Same goes for novels. I think as writer's we strive to connect with our readers (or that agent we're trying to get) but no matter how amazing the author's writing, the beauty of the book will alway be in the eye of the beholder : )

[aadams73]

Like a certain current Brownfest.


If you're talking about my thread, my intent isn't to pick on the guy or his writing--it's to look at openings that sell, and to see what about them works.

I used Dan Brown because we often give him a really bad rap around here, when the truth is that the guy shifts a bunch of books, so he must be doing something right. So I wanted to put a positive spin on his work.

To answer the OP: Yes, we're too critical, and no we're not. Too often around here we pick on the author, throw around statements about how their writing sucks or they personally suck, without backing it up with anything substantial beyond, "He uses too many dialogue tags," or something similar.

At the same time, it's natural for anyone to take a good hard look at what's going on in their own industry and to form some kind of opinion about the work that's going on out there.

I'm guilty of being too critical in the wrong ways myself. I'm trying not to be. (Says the woman who picks on Dan Brown's hair.)

It's ok not to like someone's writing, but it would be cool to back it up with something more than "so-and-so sucks!"

At the end of the day, if someone who's having a big whine about Patterson/Brown/King/Meyers/Rowling and their writing skills, or lack thereof, thinks they can do better, well, prove it. Because I'm a reader first and foremost, and I like a good book. If your book is better, I'll buy it. :D

[Bubastes]

I think that the more you learn about a particular subject, the more critical you're going to be simply because you notice things that other people don't. For me, I tend to be critical when it comes to writing, music, and food. Noticing technical flaws doesn't take away from my overall enjoyment of the story/concert/meal/whatever, though. In the end, I'm pretty easy to please.

[Danthia]

I think so, at least I am. Since I know what goes on "under the hood" so to speak, I pick up on technical stuff your average reader won't. A lot of times I can just ignore it, but sometimes I can't get past something and it ruins the book for me.

I think this is probably true for just about every profession. We're more critical of the stuff we know and do, because we know more about it and can spot things others can't.

Great example, my niece is a figure skater. We watch the Olympics, and she spots mistakes I have a hard time seeing even in the replays. And it's the same stuff the judges are marking off for.

[lucidzfl]

I think that as people begin to gain knowledge, they begin to gain snobbery.

When they begin to gain experience, they begin to gain tolerance.

[ClaudiaGray]

When beta'ing, this can be helpful because you can - in theory - give the author constructive feedback on why such-and-such isn't working.


When betaing, sure. But betaing is a context in which a writer has been asked to be critical. I think this thread is talking about whether writers are too critical in other contexts, just as readers.

For myself, I definitely notice what's done badly in a book. But I also notice what's done well, and I can think of exactly two books I've read in my whole life that I thought had no redeeming characteristics whatsoever. Even if a particular book's not to my taste, or objectively not very good, it may have something to teach me about what it does do well. Often, saying this on this board elicits a lot of "but we have the RIGHT to point out bad literature," which of course people do. But if I understand AW's primary mission, it's to help each other toward successful publishing, not to define the new Western canon. I think discussion gets "too critical" when it stops being about helping people toward success in their own writing -- when it's so focused on the flaws that it ignores the strengths. Good writing is never going to be as simple as eliminating mistakes.

[Lordofthehunt]

Overall, I would say no, though I think writers sometimes fall into the trap of looking at books as writers, not as readers -- and those are sometimes two very different things. This board fills up, time and time again, with threads picking apart a bestseller for overusing adjectives or similar faults, as if readers gave a damn about that stuff.

That's exactly it. I fall into edit mode whenever I read so it makes it hard to look beyond what I would have done, how I would have written the book. As such, I am often too critical, my mind nitpicking plot and prose rather than shutting up and enjoying the story.

Fortunately, I know I'm doing it (and have no room to question the skills of other writers as I'm just a baby myself), so I keep my mouth shut and realize it's my issue and not theirs.

[Ms Hollands]

How can you not love Kiss? Great entertainers. I think I prefer their music to half the supposedly 'talented' bands out there. :O)

I'm tough on books that I read but I think that's because I studied English Lit at Uni, rather than because I'm a writer. I didn't think I was tough on books until I joined a book club and compared my thoughts with those of others.

[Namatu]

I often wonder about successful books that I find poorly written. Were the author and editors too cynical to care? Did they not see the problems? Would they have welcomed an incisive beta-reading or discounted it? Is "good enough" really good enough? If sufficient readers actually are happy with hamburger, should we try to serve them filet mignon?These sorts of thoughts drive me crazy because I don't want it to be true. It's entirely possible the author's on a deadline and doesn't have time to make it any better than what ends up on the shelves. I would hate to be that author though. I want to believe that every author wants his or her best work out there. The publishing houses I can more easily believe will settle for "will generate revenue, good enough."

IAt the end of the day, if someone who's having a big whine about Patterson/Brown/King/Meyers/Rowling and their writing skills or lack thereof, thinks they can do better, well, prove it. Because I'm a reader first and foremost, and I like a good book. And if your book is better, I'll buy it. :DYep.

[Phaeal]

I'm guilty of being too critical in the wrong ways myself. I'm trying not to be. (Says the woman who picks on Dan Brown's hair.)

:D

Who has time to pick on Brown's hair while Donald Trump still lives?

[C.M.C.]

I think most writers are terrible critics because they have to make themselves believe that they are as good as [big name author]. Tearing down those who are already successful and praised makes it easier to consider yourself on the same level. Right or wrong, that kind of thinking is fairly prevalent. No one wants to admit to being second-rate.

[ishtar'sgate]

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.


That's probably why my beta isn't a writer, just an avid reader. I depend on him to spot the bad bits and he never lets me down.:D

[Nateskate]

If you're talking about my thread, my intent isn't to pick on the guy or his writing--it's to look at openings that sell, and to see what about them works.

I used Dan Brown because we often give him a really bad rap around here, when the truth is that the guy shifts a bunch of books, so he must be doing something right. So I wanted to put a positive spin on his work.

To answer the OP: Yes, we're too critical, and no we're not. Too often around here we pick on the author, throw around statements about how their writing sucks or they personally suck, without backing it up with anything substantial beyond, "He uses too many dialogue tags," or something similar.

At the same time, it's natural for anyone to take a good hard look at what's going on in their own industry and to form some kind of opinion about the work that's going on out there.

I'm guilty of being too critical in the wrong ways myself. I'm trying not to be. (Says the woman who picks on Dan Brown's hair.)

It's ok not to like someone's writing, but it would be cool to back it up with something more than "so-and-so sucks!"

At the end of the day, if someone who's having a big whine about Patterson/Brown/King/Meyers/Rowling and their writing skills, or lack thereof, thinks they can do better, well, prove it. Because I'm a reader first and foremost, and I like a good book. If your book is better, I'll buy it. :D

The comments on your thread do lend to this conversation. I think you were mostly pointing out how effective Brown was in adding vital information while teasing the reader to draw them in. Objectively, I agree with your point. Some will see those lines as thrilling and brilliant, and another will say they're worthless drivel. But only a writer would trash the writing, rather than the subject or genre. His writing is obviously good-enough.

Well, simply, some writers would throw an undiscovered best-seller under the bus and make them want to quit. Of course, there's a difference between absolute trash and the opening of a best-selling author. Objectively, we're missing the point if we say that a 20 million selling author can't write. Rather, they can write, though we may not like their style.

Is or is that not good writing? If this was a fan site rather than a novelist site, people would be saying what they loved about the opening rather than dissecting and picking it apart.

I mean, it's like getting the cast of Top Chef and asking them if Olive Garden makes good food? Heck, I couldn't even tell you what spice they used in their braised beef. I just like it, and would likely choose it over some items in a four star restaurant. And that's a fan's perspective.

As a writer, I kill my own work in re-writes, throwing out "had" and "that" like junk from the garage. If i see a page with two "hads" and a "that", I'm already picking them apart, bestseller or not. But I realize that is my writer bias, not a good appraisal. I wouldn't say to C.S Lewis, that you used "that" too many times. It may be true for my tastes. But it doesn't stop Narnia from being a classic.

[Nateskate]

There are published writers I cannot- stressing- CANNOT be objective with. Their style just doesn't suite me. Again, this is why I know it's my own inner bias.

As far as trying to be honest like Simon on American Idol, how many people did he write off at one time? Clay Akin? Adam Lambert? How many people did he say didn't have what it took to have a career in music who are on broadway. Jennifer Hudson has an Oscar after he said she'd never make it in the music industry. She sings at the grammies.

Simon couldn't pick a country star if they punched him in the face. Kelly Pickler. At times he was rough on her, and she has sung at the CMAs, and won awards.

So the American Idol contestant thing only shows how short sighted Simon is. Yeah, he's great at picking out some of the blunders, but he's also thrown out some flowers with the weeds.

[The Lonely One]

I'm a guitarist. As a guitarist, I hated the band "K.I.S.S", though I love the show about Gene Simons family. The world made them billionaires, but from a technical standpoint it all sounded badadada boring to me. So I could never see them the way a fan would. And yet, I might love an obscure guitarist that played nothing popular.

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

I'm wondering if any of you agree? I'm not saying authors can't offer great ideas, because they can. But I think they would take the equivalent of a beloved "guitar-lick" and because they can do it better, look at it with disdain. In a sense, Tolkien picked apart some of his friend, C.S. Lewis's writings which were beloved by his fans.

Do you think this is true? Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

I definitely see where you're coming from on this. I've often felt that a lot of the heightened talk about writing that writers go on about is intellectually interesting--in the way philosophy is interesting--but is not at all useful in any universal, applicable way.

It is useful in vague ways... "don't overuse adverbs..." but it's more useful to understand the cogwheels behind the rules, so you might actually know how to use them instead of blindly x-ing out adverbs all over the place, which, in reality, doesn't do much to make your manuscript any better.

To me, I think each individual story or novel operates on its own set of rules, and consistency is probably the most appealing rule of all. The rest is taste.

That's why now and again I like to wander away from the writer crowd (though I do like you guys and gals so...not too long), and spend some time alone with my writing to clear my mind of all besides my objective with the piece I'm writing.

Writers will catch mistakes easier than average readers, but might be overly influenced by their tastes in their own writings. I feel a wide range of beta readers helps remedy this.

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, far too critical. I can think of only two writers that I routinely blast for the quality of tehir writing, and even then I know those writers are doing something far more important that writing well. Both are telling a story and building characters that millions of readers want to know.

Dan Brown is a prime example. I think he may be the worst writer out there. I've read far better writing in slush piles, and rejected it. But he's a master at finding a story that grabs the interest of millions of readers, and he builds pretty darned good characters. In the end, this is what makes writers successful.

Other writers, reviewers, and critics seem to always blast the writing, even when they wouldn't know Shakespeare from shit, but, fortunately, the reading public tends to laugh at all this, and goes and buys teh book with the good story and good characters, as they should.

If you want to see really great, masterful writing, just go to any top end M.F.A. program. It's amazing how great the writing usually is. . .and how God awful, uninteresting, lousy crap the story and characters are.

Being able to write really well is nice, but it's gravy, not potatoes. Merely competent writing with good story and characters outlives great writing with poor story and characters every last time, and outlives all those who criticize it.

[Kosh]

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.


I never had such an experience. There are certain standards of craft, and we forget them from time to time. Everyone here who has read something I've written and commented has helped me know where my strengths are.

I ask people who don't about writing if my stories are good or not, and they only judge it by whether they can understand what is going on... and they're people who like me so that may color their view.

[kuwisdelu]

Sometimes. But not necessarily.

It depends what you mean. Am I harsh on the writing ability of someone like Dan Brown? You bet. Is it because I'm a writer? Nope. I still wouldn't enjoy his writing. There was a time I didn't care as much about prose as I do now, but that was before I started reading really great writers. My development as a reader definitely happened before my development as a writer. As my taste as a reader grew more discerning, I started looking at my own writing with a far more critical eye as well — not the other way around.

But then, I'm not some of these people's audiences. I like reading good prose. Good writing is just as important as the story to me. Sometimes more important. As a reader, good writing can make an everyday story interesting to me.

Do I have high standards for what I read? Yes. Is it because I'm a writer? No, I don't think so. It's just my personal taste.

[Matera the Mad]

In my experience, it's not creativity that causes over-nitpicking but a certain stage of perfectionist mindset developed in a desperate attempt to learn how to refine one's own work by applying too many Rules.

[PGK]

I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers.

In short to the general idea: yes.
But I would like to point out that this doesn't necessarily make the harsh critic a "better writer."
A recent study showed that the more incompetent one is at his job (or whatever it is he/she is doing) the less likely they are to be aware of it. In other words people who honestly believe they are the best and cannot be compared to anything short of divine realistically are terrible at what they do and are very generous with their criticism and belittling of others.

So being a writer and a harsh critic does not necessarily equal "really creative writer."

[Ken]

... twas a member here who posted the first chpt of their work quite awhile back and most everyone found fault with it. Several months later they announced they'd gotten a book deal. So maybe we are too critical at times. The criticism can be totally valid, while not being altogether that important for publication. So 'maybe' it should be withheld or culled, some?

[Nateskate]

I definitely see where you're coming from on this. I've often felt that a lot of the heightened talk about writing that writers go on about is intellectually interesting--in the way philosophy is interesting--but is not at all useful in any universal, applicable way.

It is useful in vague ways... "don't overuse adverbs..." but it's more useful to understand the cogwheels behind the rules, so you might actually know how to use them instead of blindly x-ing out adverbs all over the place, which, in reality, doesn't do much to make your manuscript any better.

To me, I think each individual story or novel operates on its own set of rules, and consistency is probably the most appealing rule of all. The rest is taste.

That's why now and again I like to wander away from the writer crowd (though I do like you guys and gals so...not too long), and spend some time alone with my writing to clear my mind of all besides my objective with the piece I'm writing.

Writers will catch mistakes easier than average readers, but might be overly influenced by their tastes in their own writings. I feel a wide range of beta readers helps remedy this.

I really like what you say. In effect, I think that our peer group is powerful. And we can really be intimidated by what other writers might think of our work, which would require us to constantly try to write over our heads.

I've belonged to poetry groups where I know that I know someone is a brilliant poet. But there is absolutely a snobbery in poetry at times. In fact, they'll make distinctions that if it can fit on a Hallmark Card it can't be poetry.

That's not true. But the implication is that type of word smithery is trite.

Hey. If I get caught in the trap of writing to impress writers, I'll not only never get published, I'll only get frustrated, because I'm not nearly as smart as the brilliant writers out there.

I have to settle for my own voice, and that includes writing what I like to read, which doesn't make me a literary marvel.

[johnrobison]

If a book is well-enough written to keep my attention to the end I don't give the writing another thought. I guess I'm not much of a critic

[PGK]

... twas a member here who posted the first chpt of their work quite awhile back and most everyone found fault with it. Several months later they announced they'd gotten a book deal. So maybe we are too critical at times. The criticism can be totally valid, while not being altogether that important for publication. So 'maybe' it should be withheld or culled, some?

I think constructive criticism should be handed freely. But I've seen several instances (here and elsewhere) where without seeing even a sample of the person's work some felt very comfortable making statements about that person's lack of talent or lack of imagination. I'd hate to see a gifted writer be handed such commentary at a tender/innocent/impressionable age and he/she believes it.

Besides all that, however, I can certainly remember my early years when I read books without ever being aware of the smaller nuances and mechanics of it all. All I knew was what I enjoyed and what I didn't. The same applies to movies for me. I used to watch and enjoy. Very simple, very easy. Then I attended a workshop concerning film making techniques and I've never seen a movie in the same pleasurable way again. I'm keenly aware of length of shots, camera angles (and their purpose), cast positioning, and a multitude of other elements that do not allow me to fully enter the magical world they are creating for me.

Finally, as a combination of the two I recently watched Nim's Island. There's a scene where a writer is sitting at her computer and the phone rings. The machine answers and the voice says "Hey Alex, it's Tracey, your favorite editor." (Quick note:Those names might be inaccurate, I'm going based on memory here). I cringed at hearing that. As if I would ever not recognize the name and voice of my favorite editor from Random House who've I've been working with for years. In my pre-writing days I might never have noticed that line as odd or off. Basically what I'm taking so long to explain is that we've trained our eyes to such an extent that we might be ignoring the so called "layman's perspective" which doesn't care one iota about subtle nuances. You think I ever blinked an eye at a prologue prior to joining this community? No, I trusted the author's vision as it was and hopped on board for the ride.

[Nateskate]

Sometimes. But not necessarily.

It depends what you mean. Am I harsh on the writing ability of someone like Dan Brown? You bet. Is it because I'm a writer? Nope. I still wouldn't enjoy his writing. There was a time I didn't care as much about prose as I do now, but that was before I started reading really great writers. My development as a reader definitely happened before my development as a writer. As my taste as a reader grew more discerning, I started looking at my own writing with a far more critical eye as well — not the other way around.

But then, I'm not some of these people's audiences. I like reading good prose. Good writing is just as important as the story to me. Sometimes more important. As a reader, good writing can make an everyday story interesting to me.

Do I have high standards for what I read? Yes. Is it because I'm a writer? No, I don't think so. It's just my personal taste.

Tolkien does that to me, in terms of pushing me to look for better ways to describe events and places. I love his descriptions of the Elves attacking the stronghold of Melkor/Morgoth in the Silmarillion. But other parts of the Silmarillion dragged for me. There are many people here who don't think Tolkien is a great writer, perhaps more than those who do, like me.

It would be good for us to share ideals of what great writing is? For me, I think the really greatest of the great writers write on such depressing topics that it hurts me to read them, or I have to fight to keep up with them because they're a grade or two ahead of me mentally. Maybe it's the ADHD?

[Nateskate]

I think constructive criticism should be handed freely. But I've seen several instances (here and elsewhere) where without seeing even a sample of the person's work some felt very comfortable making statements about that person's lack of talent or lack of imagination. I'd hate to see a gifted writer be handed such commentary at a tender/innocent/impressionable age and he/she believes it.

Besides all that, however, I can certainly remember my early years when I read books without ever being aware of the smaller nuances and mechanics of it all. All I knew was what I enjoyed and what I didn't. The same applies to movies for me. I used to watch and enjoy. Very simple, very easy. Then I attended a workshop concerning film making techniques and I've never seen a movie in the same pleasurable way again. I'm keenly aware of length of shots, camera angles (and their purpose), cast positioning, and a multitude of other elements that do not allow me to fully enter the magical world they are creating for me.

Finally, as a combination of the two I recently watched Nim's Island. There's a scene where a writer is sitting at her computer and the phone rings. The machine answers and the voice says "Hey Alex, it's Tracey, your favorite editor." (Quick note:Those names might be inaccurate, I'm going based on memory here). I cringed at hearing that. As if I would ever not recognize the name and voice of my favorite editor from Random House who've I've been working with for years. In my pre-writing days I might never have noticed that line as odd or off. Basically what I'm taking so long to explain is that we've trained our eyes to such an extent that we might be ignoring the so called "layman's perspective" which doesn't care one iota about subtle nuances. You think I ever blinked an eye at a prologue prior to joining this community? No, I trusted the author's vision as it was and hopped on board for the ride.

This is a great comment. When I wrote this, I wasn't really thinking of those writers that need encouragement and to be nurished, rather than to be smacked by a Simon Cowell type appraisal.

The whole concept of nurturing writers is worthy of its own thread, because I agree. Some feel that to be a good critic you must browbeat and nitpick.

Again, using the opening to Dan Brown's novel- like him or hate him for whatever reason- he's good enough to connect with a mass of people that love his books. And yet, I'm certain that if he shared his first three pages in "Share your work" that some might rip his opening to shreds. ??? It matters little for Dan Brown, but for a young author who can't discern between good, and good enough for a tough crowd, they could easily give up.

[Nateskate]

I think the main difference in your scenario might be the physical talent it takes to play an instrument as opposed to the determination and dedication it takes to produce a book.
...And before somebody goes off about the time it takes to be a great musician, stop yourself, Stop... What I'm saying is that assuming a musician can play and a writer can write, it becomes easier to fault a musician for playing poorly than a writer for producing a bad book, because anyone who has attempted to create a novel or non-fiction piece has to put an enormous amount of time into that ONE piece of work where as a musician (other than a complicated classical piece) generally can produce a piece of good work in far less the time. Hence, I may not like the subject material of an author, and I certainly don't like authors that write standard formatted material based on their previous success, but I do respect any author who has managed to get a work published.

It's not a matter of playing poorly, as much as it is a matter of what is technically astounding vs. what appeals to the general public. A long time ago I asked a question about whether we'd prefer a book written by Martin Crane or Frazier Crane? The point wasn't whether one was good and the other bad. The point was do we appreciate a steak house or snub our noses at it because our tastes are so refined? Or something like that.

And this may sound like the reverse of what I'm trying to say- I absolutely don't respect every author that manages to get a work published. Sometimes I shake my head and wonder who fell asleep at the wheel at that publishing house. So I have my own snobbish traits to contend with.

[PGK]

And this may sound like the reverse of what I'm trying to say- I absolutely don't respect every author that manages to get a work published. Sometimes I shake my head and wonder who fell asleep at the wheel at that publishing house. So I have my own snobbish traits to contend with.

I'm reading a book by Jeff Rovin right now called "Conversations With the Devil." While I like the story so far, I think it fits perfectly into that category of "who fell asleep at the wheel at that publishing house." It reads like a first draft that hasn't been seen with an editorial eye once. Misspelled words galore, absurd repetition of names (e.g. Sara said "Hi John." John said "Hi Sara." Sara said "How are you tonight John?" John said "I'm fine Sara.") careless mistakes (e.g. "you" instead of "your," "its" instead of "it's," and several examples of misused "to, too, and two" and more). Then there's also a bad translation of a Greek word, but I've given up on complaining about that since it's practically the norm anymore to translate Greek by means of Google and get it wrong.

Then again, can I fault the author or the publisher for all that? It's published by TOR (Tom Doherty, Inc.) which makes it even more the stranger.
Sorry for going a bit off topic there.

[Ken]

... attn PGK.

Though I've been writing for quite some time I still read books the same as I did before I ever picked up a pen. I don't notice anything about the arrangement of the prose, unless it is atrociously bad. It's only when I'm critiquing something for someone that I notice the mechanics and what does and doesn't work. So critiquing for me requires a real conscious effort.

That may be because I have never read a book on the craft of writing fiction. I couldn't even tell you what a 'story arc' is or any of that other jazz, though I most likely employ them all the time in my own stuff. Probably a lot of downsides to that I'm not even aware of, but it does allow me to continue to enjoy novels for the sheer delight of the story. So to some extent you might say ignorance is indeed bliss :-)

[LuckyH]

Having time while waiting for the Twilight thread to come along, I fully agree that authors are often over-critical of each others work. There have been many well-publicised literary spats between the greats, never mind the exchanges on this excellent writing forum. And when poets get their knickers in a twist? It can lead to pistols at dawn.

What are we, apart from opinionated philosophers that demand to be heard? And with so few places available at the top table, competition has to be fierce.

I’ve also noticed that the ones at the top table and comfortable within their own skins, if they’re busy, don’t bother with letters to newspapers slagging off the competition. But I quite like those letters, and the varying opinions on this site, it makes life interesting; even when I have to clench my teeth when a real howler comes along and I find it best to remember that, at times, silence is golden.

So what’s wrong with well-placed clichés?

[shaldna]

I think it's all subjective.

I mean, I hate Dan Brown, but I love Michael Crichton. So it's not the level of fame thing, or the controversial issue thing. There's just something about MC that I really like.

I have to admit that I do get put off by the author themselves sometimes, I have seen cerain authors being interviewed etc and how they come across often will have and effect on how I look at thier work. I think if there's an author who's public persona I don't opersonally like then I will find a reason to pick holes in their work.

If an author is too self important (Martin Amis) or too smug (Stephenie Meyer) or too blatantly sensationalist (Dan Brown) or just trying far too hard (Ben Elton) then that influences how I feel about their work.

Terry Pratchett can do no wrong in my eyes, and in interviews he is sweet and funny and intelligent. If he had turned out to be a complete bastard then I probably would have been put off his books.

On the other hand I was watching an interview with James Patterson, and although I wasn't a big fan of his stuff, he came across as a well spoken, intelligent person.

It's the same with Maryann Keyes. I can't stand her books, but as a person she seems absolutely lovely, funny and smart.

[knight_tour]

I'm a guitarist, too, and think the same way you do. I do think having authors crit my work is useful, but in SYW I also saw them being overly critical about things that simple readers didn't mind at all. Dare to put a prologue in your work? Writers will chew you up for that, while readers will generally be just fine with it. Dare to use Tolkienesque elves or dwarves, etc.? The writers (not all, but too many) will dismiss you outright, while readers may love it.

[knight_tour]

It's not a matter of playing poorly, as much as it is a matter of what is technically astounding vs. what appeals to the general public. A long time ago I asked a question about whether we'd prefer a book written by Martin Crane or Frazier Crane? The point wasn't whether one was good and the other bad. The point was do we appreciate a steak house or snub our noses at it because our tastes are so refined? Or something like that.

And this may sound like the reverse of what I'm trying to say- I absolutely don't respect every author that manages to get a work published. Sometimes I shake my head and wonder who fell asleep at the wheel at that publishing house. So I have my own snobbish traits to contend with.

Reminds me of an argument I once had, where some musicians were saying guys like Satriani were far better than people like Jimmy Page. Now, I like Satriani, but the idea that he is better than Page simply because he is far more accurate is ludicrous. Technical accuracy is not the point of music. Page is better at writing music that has lasting and deep appeal than Satriani is. It matters not how many mistakes he may make while playing; it only matters how the music resonates with the listeners. It's the same with writing.

[Alpha Echo]

I think that a writer and a critic are two entirely different animals, with totally different roles in life. I’m a writer and shy away from any situation where I am asked to judge a fellow writer, because I’m not qualified to fulfil that role.



I feel the same way. I have only beta'd a couple times. I'm a grammar nazi, so I have that down. I can offer advice. But I'm not published. I'm still learning, and I know my advice isn't professional. It's based on what I've learned here, from reading books on writing, and from my own writing.

As far as reading other books and criticizing them...I'm bad sometimes. Especially if the story doesn't have me on the edge of my seat - then I tear apart everything else. I'm certainly more critical of the books I read than I was before I really started writing.

[Kosh]

Dan Brown is a prime example. I think he may be the worst writer out there. I've read far better writing in slush piles, and rejected it. But he's a master at finding a story that grabs the interest of millions of readers, and he builds pretty darned good characters. In the end, this is what makes writers successful.

Other writers, reviewers, and critics seem to always blast the writing, even when they wouldn't know Shakespeare from shit, but, fortunately, the reading public tends to laugh at all this, and goes and buys teh book with the good story and good characters, as they should.

If you want to see really great, masterful writing, just go to any top end M.F.A. program. It's amazing how great the writing usually is. . .and how God awful, uninteresting, lousy crap the story and characters are.

Being able to write really well is nice, but it's gravy, not potatoes. Merely competent writing with good story and characters outlives great writing with poor story and characters every last time, and outlives all those who criticize it.

But if Dan Brown isn't a good writer, isnt' saying so just truthful?

And why can't you have both good writing and great characters in a great story? It's not an impossible feat, many a Genre writer was conscious of style and story. Theodore Sturgeon was famous for using poetic rhythm in his prose.

If you give a writer a piece of work that isn't written well, and they say so... I don't see how that's harsh so much as a challenge to rewrite it as a great manuscript.

[Namatu]

I do think having authors crit my work is useful, but in SYW I also saw them being overly critical about things that simple readers didn't mind at all.The author then needs to decide which advice to take and which to ignore. Depending on how confident the author, this can be difficult to determine, but it is, ultimately, up to the author. This could be a whole other discussion.

[wysewomon]

(I haven't read this entire thread, but this is my opinion)

I know some writers like that. My friends and I, writers all, used to be like that years ago, back in high school, even.

But I'm not like that now, and neither are the friends I'm still friends with. We don't feel the need to pick things apart to that degree any longer. We've learned to give constructive criticism without having to tear down.

Now I'm pretty easy-going as a reader. I can read about anything and enjoy at least parts of it. I can respect that even the worst novel, or the one I like least, has merit that might be built on and probably speaks to somebody. Plus, even the worst novel was a lot of work to create and that merits respect, too.

In the end, I think tearing down is more about the ego of the person who does it than the work s/he's criticizing. When I find myself wanting to do it, I have to ask myself, "What is so threatening to me about this work?" If I can figure that out, I can grow.

WW

[Semper Write]

As a guitar player myself, I can totally see what you mean about KISS's 1-4-5 static. I love the show as well and owned a rare Japanese KISS record back when I was a kid. I loved the cover of the vinyl, but never put that record on. I always drifted toward Houses of the Holy for the music, although as a 10 year old, the cover was interestingly naked and in those days, things were less in-your-face as it were. I think ZZ Top suffers from the same 1-4-5 five chord problem, but they are able to mix it up with interesting start & stop action and crunchy overdrive, I guess. Hendrix is the master. All you have to do is listen to Little Wing or, in my opinion, Power to Love and you can see his genius.

In writing, the blandness of the text is a tongue of the beholder situation. I like some bland writing if the story is good. Say it in plain English, yes? On the other hand, a beautiful piece of literature can be admired, but as boring as the English Patient or that piano flick where that actor runs around naked, showing off his wrinkled ass while his student gets hot and bothered.

I think writing is an art and a trade. Constructive criticism is good if it furthers your ability or opens your mind - just like a story. If the criticism is for another reason, that's different.

[Cathy C]

I am a HUGE K.I.S.S. fan (owning every album and compilation they've ever made), so I'm probably the wrong writer to ask... ;)

[AryaT92]

I think so.

[LuckyH]

I can’t resist adding that I’m a guitar player too, but my idol is Django Reinhardt, and I can’t even imitate him at the lowest level, but I still try.

[Ken]

... KISS is cool. The arrogance and conceit of the band is a turn off, though. They seem to think they're God's gift to the world, particularly their lead singer. Hard to get into a group that thinks of themselves as such.

[Nateskate]

I'm reading a book by Jeff Rovin right now called "Conversations With the Devil." While I like the story so far, I think it fits perfectly into that category of "who fell asleep at the wheel at that publishing house." It reads like a first draft that hasn't been seen with an editorial eye once. Misspelled words galore, absurd repetition of names (e.g. Sara said "Hi John." John said "Hi Sara." Sara said "How are you tonight John?" John said "I'm fine Sara.") careless mistakes (e.g. "you" instead of "your," "its" instead of "it's," and several examples of misused "to, too, and two" and more). Then there's also a bad translation of a Greek word, but I've given up on complaining about that since it's practically the norm anymore to translate Greek by means of Google and get it wrong.

Then again, can I fault the author or the publisher for all that? It's published by TOR (Tom Doherty, Inc.) which makes it even more the stranger.
Sorry for going a bit off topic there.

It's not off topic. It's an important thing to clarify.

I need to make this distinction for the sake of others that post here. I'm not saying that we should overlook horrible mechanics, or sappy writing, and that we don't have a right to make these kinds of distinctions.

I do that, and every editor has to do that or we'd fall into a horrible mess. In fact, authors can be great at helping people to find a clever way to say things, or new ways, and so we do have lots to offer.

What I'm trying to address is what John Lennon referred to as a Glass Onion, the opposite of Rose Colored Glasses. And that is such a negative critical lens that is a result of not being able to see a novel how a typical fan would.

I may be delusional in saying this, but I think I could write a paraphrased version of the Silmarillion that would be a smash hit. Few of Tolkien's most ardent Lord of the Rings fans will read past the first chapter of the Silmarillion. Much of it is in narrative, where added dialogue is needed.

However, at least I know that's a bit snobbish to think I can do better than Tolkien at presenting his own work. But I need to realize that tendency when I read any novel. I can't be objective in saying it's good, only whether I love it or don't. The public decides for themselves what they love.

And some writers can't realize that trait in themselves. They think they're objective when they say things like Rowlands stinks, or Dan Brown stinks, or Tolkien is over-rated. How in the world can someone with this mindset be objective in reading a novices work, and seeing if they have potential?

So I think we writers must be wary of our tendency to judge harsher than an avid reader would.

[Nateskate]

I am a HUGE K.I.S.S. fan (owning every album and compilation they've ever made), so I'm probably the wrong writer to ask... ;)

Cathy, you would be perfect. That's the point I'm making. Billions love KISS. I'm not objective or even proud that I don't like KISS. In a sense, the fact that I think in technical terms ruins things for me. I think what guitar riff I'd use, or what sound I'd use. I'm a HUGE Beatles fan, but now when I hear some of George Harrison's early leads I think how blah it was, where I just loved the song before and never thought those negative thoughts. Sunshine of Your Love was a favorite song. Now I can hear where Clapton is playing off the beat and actually stumbling with the lead. I won't play air guitar to it now when I hear that. Lol.

This is what I'm saying about us as writers, the better we get, the worse others might seem. Some will smash Rowlands, Dan Brown, Tolkien, and think they're being objective. At some point we're at risk of becoming tainted by our own talents. (Lol- If I'm not deluded)

[Nateskate]

I think it's all subjective.

I mean, I hate Dan Brown, but I love Michael Crichton. So it's not the level of fame thing, or the controversial issue thing. There's just something about MC that I really like.

I have to admit that I do get put off by the author themselves sometimes, I have seen cerain authors being interviewed etc and how they come across often will have and effect on how I look at thier work. I think if there's an author who's public persona I don't opersonally like then I will find a reason to pick holes in their work.

If an author is too self important (Martin Amis) or too smug (Stephenie Meyer) or too blatantly sensationalist (Dan Brown) or just trying far too hard (Ben Elton) then that influences how I feel about their work.

Terry Pratchett can do no wrong in my eyes, and in interviews he is sweet and funny and intelligent. If he had turned out to be a complete bastard then I probably would have been put off his books.

On the other hand I was watching an interview with James Patterson, and although I wasn't a big fan of his stuff, he came across as a well spoken, intelligent person.

It's the same with Maryann Keyes. I can't stand her books, but as a person she seems absolutely lovely, funny and smart.

Great points. I couldn't write what Dan Brown writes because I don't enjoy conspiracy theory books that purposely overlook obvious inconsistancies. Well, if it's Men in Black, tongue in cheek silly stuff, hey, that's different.

I should clarify that I think we have just as much right to hate someone's novels as anyone. Or to love them. Or to love and hate them, like I do with the Thomas Covenant series.

But at least we're admitting this is subjective tastes. Someone likes Twilight, and another hates it. But the author is a very successful author.

My thoughts that we writers take a step back, to see if we're being objective, is because we can lose perspective between objective reality and subjective opinion. That's an opinion that I'm weighing at present.

[knight_tour]

I may be delusional in saying this, but I think I could write a paraphrased version of the Silmarillion that would be a smash hit. Few of Tolkien's most ardent Lord of the Rings fans will read past the first chapter of the Silmarillion. Much of it is in narrative, where added dialogue is needed.

I don't think it's delusional. I have always wanted to do this same thing, as I love the Silmarillion, but would indeed love to see some of the tales fleshed out into real stories. I don't blame Tolkien at all, as I think he wanted to do a high-level history, but I do think that if he got to live a much longer life that he would have liked to have given the LOTR treatment to some of the stories from the Silmarillion. And while I do think that you or I could make great stories from those broadbrushed versions in the Silmarillion, I am not so certain that we could actually do better than Tolkien had he had the time to do the same.

[knight_tour]

Nateskate, I think what you might be getting at is something that I myself have thought ever since I tried out SYW here. I think that critters should leave out anything that pertains to their own tastes when they crit and only focus on edits or 'big picture' problems they see in the work. I love getting help in technical aspects of my writing, especially about things that I just didn't see, but I really dislike someone panning my work just because they don't like Tolkien or think that prologues are wrong. If that means that a critter should just skip some work, then so be it. To me that is better than unhelpful disparagement.

[Cathy C]

This is what I'm saying about us as writers, the better we get, the worse others might seem. Some will smash Rowlands, Dan Brown, Tolkien, and think they're being objective. At some point we're at risk of becoming tainted by our own talents. (Lol- If I'm not deluded)

I don't know if it's a matter of being tainted by our own talents, so much as a realization that we've learned techniques which could have alleviated the problems. Books I used to really enjoy I struggle with now---not because the book has changed one iota, but because I find plot holes and characterization faults that could have been easily fixed.

I noticed the same things BEFORE I started to write too. But they didn't bother me because I had no idea how they could have been fixed. It was an "Oh well. It was the only way to do it." issue.

But now I know better. ;)

So I don't know that we're too critical. On the plus side, it makes us much more lavish fans of books we really DO think rock.

I think that critters should leave out anything that pertains to their own tastes when they crit and only focus on edits or 'big picture' problems they see in the work. I love getting help in technical aspects of my writing, especially about things that I just didn't see, but I really dislike someone panning my work just because they don't like Tolkien or think that prologues are wrong. If that means that a critter should just skip some work, then so be it. To me that is better than unhelpful disparagement.


Now, see, and I don't agree. I think even the disparaging comments are useful. The public has just as strong of slings and arrows as writers do. What I see in a lot of crits that "pan" a work is the reality of what is on the shelf. Yes, something unique and different can sell. Yes, it can be a hit. But they're few and far between. Readers like what they like and tastes change every day. By giving an author nothing but "big picture" technical crits, the author is being shortchanged by what's going to happen once it's on the shelf. I've personally found that when betas or early readers have panned parts of my book, the same thing was later said in reviews (when I mistakenly ignored the critics. :o )

[knight_tour]

Now, see, and I don't agree. I think even the disparaging comments are useful. The public has just as strong of slings and arrows as writers do. What I see in a lot of crits that "pan" a work is the reality of what is on the shelf. Yes, something unique and different can sell. Yes, it can be a hit. But they're few and far between. Readers like what they like and tastes change every day. By giving an author nothing but "big picture" technical crits, the author is being shortchanged by what's going to happen once it's on the shelf. I've personally found that when betas or early readers have panned parts of my book, the same thing was later said in reviews (when I mistakenly ignored the critics. :o )

I think there are basically two types of readers, just the same way that I think there are two types of music lover. There are those who always want something brand new, and there are those who love what they love.

I have a brother and a sister who never seem to have any attachment to a piece of music; they simply keep liking whatever 'new' popular song comes along. Then there are those like me who hold onto our love of music long after they are no longer the new thing. I will always keep loving Led Zeppelin or the Beatles, though I will continue to add new loves.

I think it is the same with books. Some always want to see everything new. I do that with some genres. With fantasy, though, I like what I like and don't really care to see the basic elements change. I like fresh stories, yes, but I will always want to read about elves and wizards and dragons. If someone wants to make up some weird new race, fine, I am sure that many readers will love it, but I won't read it unless it is sci-fi. I like the traditional when it comes to fantasy. I don't think there is any reason for a critter to bash me for writing what I and many others love, just because we seem cliche to them.

[Nateskate]

Nateskate, I think what you might be getting at is something that I myself have thought ever since I tried out SYW here. I think that critters should leave out anything that pertains to their own tastes when they crit and only focus on edits or 'big picture' problems they see in the work. I love getting help in technical aspects of my writing, especially about things that I just didn't see, but I really dislike someone panning my work just because they don't like Tolkien or think that prologues are wrong. If that means that a critter should just skip some work, then so be it. To me that is better than unhelpful disparagement.

First, I'd like to comment on your Tolkien thoughts, as I love to discuss Tolkien. Could Tolkien have fixed it? I don't know. When you look at how long it took to write Lord of the Rings, which covers a few years of history rather than many lifetimes, he kept getting bogged down in the minutia. Also, he wrote 3-7 versions of much of Lord of the Rings, and that was with C.S Lewis and other brilliant minds offering suggestions.

It's far easier- in my mind- to start from scratch than it is to fix a literary mess. The Silmarillion is the most brilliant storyline in fiction. But Tolkien might not have had the ability to kill the parts he'd have to kill, or the fortitude to stretch out all the parts that needed to be built up.

On the other department, I don't know that I could ever be a good Beta Reader, but that's me. I'm a better writer than reader. A friend of mine was sending me parts of her story, and I thought it was a mess, and now she has a publisher. I saw no potential in that outcome.

I think we- me- needs to temper comments, especially when we realize a tendency to be too critical. That's why some dads who were great athletes are terrible at coaching their kid. It's a different animal to play a sport than it is to teach a sport, or to identify potential and nurture it.

[ClaudiaGray]

My favorite critical take on KISS came from those sages of old, Beavis and Butthead, who watched one of their videos in silence for a few seconds, until Beavis said, "These guys are pretty cool for a bunch of mimes."

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm a guitarist. As a guitarist, I hated the band "K.I.S.S", though I love the show about Gene Simons family. The world made them billionaires, but from a technical standpoint it all sounded badadada boring to me. So I could never see them the way a fan would. And yet, I might love an obscure guitarist that played nothing popular.

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

I'm wondering if any of you agree? I'm not saying authors can't offer great ideas, because they can. But I think they would take the equivalent of a beloved "guitar-lick" and because they can do it better, look at it with disdain. In a sense, Tolkien picked apart some of his friend, C.S. Lewis's writings which were beloved by his fans.

Do you think this is true? Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

Funny, but Ace Freeley was WHY I picked up a guitar. So no. I don't agree.

[knight_tour]

It's far easier- in my mind- to start from scratch than it is to fix a literary mess. The Silmarillion is the most brilliant storyline in fiction. But Tolkien might not have had the ability to kill the parts he'd have to kill, or the fortitude to stretch out all the parts that needed to be built up.

I kind of disagree here. I think it would easy to write great versions of some of the stories in the Silmarillion. I have had a version jangling around in my head for decades; I won't write it because it would be a pointless exercise given that the Tolkien estate would never allow it to be published. I would not do such a story with the major characters he created as the POV characters. The story I came up with has brand new characters whose stories are wrapped up in events from the Silmarillion. They may meet some of the major Tolkien characters, but only in passing. This way it would be easy to tell the story and keep it generally accurate without needing to worry if every detail was exactly correct. After all, different people have different perspectives, and even our own earth history books are not truly accurate from the perspectives of all involved.

[L.Jones]

I think writers look for different things in each other's work. I had an editor once tell me that they were pleased when their authors won any award but that they didn't put a lot of stock in ones awarded by other authors (over reader, bookseller, or mixed panel judging) because they tended to pick books that didn't have mass appeal or end up with good sales numbers.

I think of the commentators for the Olympic ice skating this week who are wowed with stuff I think looks dorky and then they suck air through their teeth in pain over mistakes that I can't even see no matter how many times they show it - she leaned back a little on that landing.

It's human nature. My hubby is in construction and trust me, those guys recognize each other's work and always use a critical eye for what they see.


annie
http://ishowerwiththemostinterestingpeople.blogspot.com/

[Nateskate]

I kind of disagree here. I think it would easy to write great versions of some of the stories in the Silmarillion. I have had a version jangling around in my head for decades; I won't write it because it would be a pointless exercise given that the Tolkien estate would never allow it to be published. I would not do such a story with the major characters he created as the POV characters. The story I came up with has brand new characters whose stories are wrapped up in events from the Silmarillion. They may meet some of the major Tolkien characters, but only in passing. This way it would be easy to tell the story and keep it generally accurate without needing to worry if every detail was exactly correct. After all, different people have different perspectives, and even our own earth history books are not truly accurate from the perspectives of all involved.

It makes sense to me, because the Silmarillion should be multiple books. It should be a series. In a sense it's formated like the Old Testament, which isn't one story. It's many stories around central themes. So, you're right, characters would have to be added.

[knight_tour]

It makes sense to me, because the Silmarillion should be multiple books. It should be a series. In a sense it's formated like the Old Testament, which isn't one story. It's many stories around central themes. So, you're right, characters would have to be added.

Yeah, I think it would be awesome to get a series of great authors together and hand them each a section of the Silmarillion to flesh out into real novels.

[Jamesaritchie]

I may be delusional in saying this, but I think I could write a paraphrased version of the Silmarillion that would be a smash hit. Few of Tolkien's most ardent Lord of the Rings fans will read past the first chapter of the Silmarillion. Much of it is in narrative, where added dialogue is needed.



I keep hearing this, but I personally know so many readers who love the Silmarillion that I'm convinced this is myth, more than reality. I've read it, and have no probem with it at all. It's a "purpose" book, and if you know this going in, it's both a wonderful and necessary read.

[Nateskate]

I keep hearing this, but I personally know so many readers who love the Silmarillion that I'm convinced this is myth, more than reality. I've read it, and have no probem with it at all. It's a "purpose" book, and if you know this going in, it's both a wonderful and necessary read.


Hi James. I used the word paraphrased for a reason, because it is a word that many associate with the Bible. It's an interpretation that is written in an expansive way to try to make it easier to understand. But then again, it is a translation, and much can be lost in the translation. Still, many people only read the paraphrased version and never fight through trying to understand the undiluted, which is a more literal translation of Hebrew Aramaic and Greek.

For you and for me, the Silmarillion is a great book. I read it 3 times. And it got better with each reading because I no longer had to remember who was who, because the names Feanor, Finway, Finarfin... lots of Fs drove me crazy at first.

But I know many Tolkien fans who have tried to read the Silmarillion, people that read Lord of the Rings yearly, who gave up on the Silmarillion and never read it through.

It's such a great story I believe it is worth the investment. But again, I'm one of those people who would read the Bible through over and over, fighting through all the begats to get to the point. I'm a stubborn reader when I'm determined. I'm also a stubborn writer. Maybe I can't paraphrase the Silmarillion, but countless people would read a great paraphrase who can't stomach a tough read.

[kuwisdelu]

Sometimes the changes that would give a book much more commercial appeal and make it more accessible would kill the nuances and style that many of its fans love.

When it comes to what's the most marketable, popular opinion rules, and that isn't necessarily what's the best.

Regardless of whether I'm a reader or a writer, my tastes don't often align with what's most popular.

[Purple Tulip]

Adding fodder to the discussion-this is an interesting thread and it made me think of...


"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

~Anton Ego from Ratatouille

[Nateskate]

Sometimes the changes that would give a book much more commercial appeal and make it more accessible would kill the nuances and style that many of its fans love.

When it comes to what's the most marketable, popular opinion rules, and that isn't necessarily what's the best.

Regardless of whether I'm a reader or a writer, my tastes don't often align with what's most popular.

I'm not sure if you were commenting on my idea that the Silmarillion could be paraphrased? I agree with your point if it is. I wouldn't want to see a "tame" version. The Silmarillion is dark, borrowing from some of the darkest elements of Mythology. Hurin/Turin...etc. It's a tragedy.

I wouldn't want to see a populist version, but one that stayed true to the elements of the story. The Lord of the Rings uses Hobbits to offset the gravity of the story. I wouldn't even want to see that employed.

Some people don't get that Tolkien's stories are all told in the framework of "The Long Defeat", and that it's about serious subjects, including mankind's attempt to find immortality in a fallen world, where they don't improve, but embalm things in an attempt to extend a fallen existance. In a sense, Gollum is the outcome, a long life, but not a better life.

[Nateskate]

Adding fodder to the discussion-this is an interesting thread and it made me think of...


"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

~Anton Ego from Ratatouille

Thanks for sharing this. Critics are sometimes absurd. I have watched Avatar three times, twice taking skeptic friends curious to see if it wasn't just hype. And each of my friends jaws dropped. While the theater applauded at the end, they said, "Wow! Wow! That was amazing!"

How in the world can critic score a movie that is near to three billion in sales, 2 1/2 stars??? Like the plot or not, the story is so well executed and so ground breaking in technology that it defies any number of stars.

To say it's eye candy and a thrill ride with a so-so plot, is misleading. Jurasic Park Three falls under that category. Men in Black Two falls in that category. You go, you see big effects, big monsters and you feel let down.

Avatar wasn't in that category at all. I didn't intend to see it three times. Again, it was simply accompanying friends who were curious. But all three times I came away liking it more. That doesn't happen in movies like Jurassic Park Three. People don't applaud movies like that. Critics can be so existential that they don't get it. Their job isn't to mislead the movie-watching public. It's to help the public decide which movies are worth seeing, especially critics whose comments are sent out in mass media.

Example. Some critics panned the Beatles Abby Road, saying it was too polished? What? There is no other album in music history even like it. You can polish a pig's backside until it shines and it's not Abby Road.

[knight_tour]

For you and for me, the Silmarillion is a great book. I read it 3 times. And it got better with each reading because I no longer had to remember who was who, because the names Feanor, Finway, Finarfin... lots of Fs drove me crazy at first.

But I know many Tolkien fans who have tried to read the Silmarillion, people that read Lord of the Rings yearly, who gave up on the Silmarillion and never read it through.

Yep. I love the Silmarillion the most of Tolkien's books, though it took a heavy investment from me to get to that point. When I first read it through, I did it the wrong way and couldn't love it. Years later I tried again and did it right. I looked up each place name on the map each time it came up if I didn't know where it was; I made sure I understood each name each time it was used. It took a big time investment to get through it this way, but it became a work of exquisite beauty to me that I now revisit every few years. I love it the way it is, but I would also love to see some of the stories fleshed out into true novels.

Edit: I was inspired here to put my own little outline for such a story on my blog.

[Nateskate]

Yep. I love the Silmarillion the most of Tolkien's books, though it took a heavy investment from me to get to that point. When I first read it through, I did it the wrong way and couldn't love it. Years later I tried again and did it right. I looked up each place name on the map each time it came up if I didn't know where it was; I made sure I understood each name each time it was used. It took a big time investment to get through it this way, but it became a work of exquisite beauty to me that I now revisit every few years. I love it the way it is, but I would also love to see some of the stories fleshed out into true novels.

Edit: I was inspired here to put my own little outline for such a story on my blog.

In some ways I learned what not to do from the Silmarillion. Adding too many confusing names trips up the reader, and they have to go back and research who was who. Even with the map it was beyond frustrating to turn to the index every other page.

Don't use similar names. Which were the Eldar? Which were the Edain? In fact, I would tell anyone here to look at the index of the Silmarillion and count the number of similar sounding names and places. You will shake your head.

I learned that balance is vital. Long blocks of story without dialogue is daunting. The more he used dialogue, the more the story flowed, but by then he'd lost the majority of potential readers.

Limit your creation account to a few pages. Getting through the names and abilities of the Maiar and Valar was again daunting. It was too much introducing and not enough story.

Poetry and songs: It's like Goldilocks, there's definitely a point of "Toooooo Much!" Many readers skip the songs and poems in Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, because it slows the story for them. They want to know "What happens", and get frustrated by some song that might have a seed of value, outside of those who just love poems and songs.

If there was no Hobbit, and no Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion might well have died on the vine. But there was such a hunger from devoted Tolkien fans for more details of Middle Earth, that enough diehards read through the difficult parts to find the gorgeous story underneath.

With all that criticism, I still say that the Silmarillion is my favorite story- fiction. It's a majestic tale.

[kuwisdelu]

I learned that balance is vital. Long blocks of story without dialogue is daunting. The more he used dialogue, the more the story flowed, but by then he'd lost the majority of potential readers.

Limit your creation account to a few pages. Getting through the names and abilities of the Maiar and Valar was again daunting. It was too much introducing and not enough story.

Poetry and songs: It's like Goldilocks, there's definitely a point of "Toooooo Much!" Many readers skip the songs and poems in Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, because it slows the story for them. They want to know "What happens", and get frustrated by some song that might have a seed of value, outside of those who just love poems and songs.

On the other hand, what might have been lost without putting in those things? Personally, I don't mind skipping over some stuff every now and then in a story, but coming back later and re-reading it for the richness and taking in all those things.

[Ken]

... confession: I'm one of those Tolkien fans who read the Trilogy twice, but who couldn't make it past the first chpt of the Silmarillion. I think it says in the intro that it was left unfinished by him and that his son pieced it together. So I used that as an excuse for why I couldn't get into it. It's been awhile and my memory is vague but as I recall the text read very factually, like a history book, and made me groggy.

[Albannach]

I'm a guitarist. As a guitarist, I hated the band "K.I.S.S", though I love the show about Gene Simons family. The world made them billionaires, but from a technical standpoint it all sounded badadada boring to me. So I could never see them the way a fan would. And yet, I might love an obscure guitarist that played nothing popular.

Somehow, I think this principle applies to writing. I think that really creative writers will be much harder on other writers, and therefore they are not great at being Beta Readers. They will nitpick and hack and hew without mercy, because they see through the lens of a very critical eye.

I'm wondering if any of you agree? I'm not saying authors can't offer great ideas, because they can. But I think they would take the equivalent of a beloved "guitar-lick" and because they can do it better, look at it with disdain. In a sense, Tolkien picked apart some of his friend, C.S. Lewis's writings which were beloved by his fans.

Do you think this is true? Do you ever find yourself ripping apart beloved novels? Has another writer given you advice that you thought was overly harsh or even grandiose or self-indulgent as Simon says on American Idol?

Do I "rip apart" favorite novels? I pay a LOT of attention to what the author did and why it works. I also look for things that didn't. How else does one learn?

Has another writer ever given me advise I didn't AGREE with? Sure. Lots of times. But grandiose or self-indulgent? What about giving advice is self-indulgent? If they're self-indulgent, I doubt they give advice.

Professionals in any field will see things that others don't. The fact that others don't see these things does not mean that professional standards don't matter. A carpenter will see the faults in the joinery; an architect will see poor design. A writer will see the faults in another's writing and, for that matter, in their own.

Edit: I also look at the Silmarillion more as a history than a normal novel.

[knight_tour]

... confession: I'm one of those Tolkien fans who read the Trilogy twice, but who couldn't make it past the first chpt of the Silmarillion. I think it says in the intro that it was left unfinished by him and that his son pieced it together. So I used that as an excuse for why I couldn't get into it. It's been awhile and my memory is vague but as I recall the text read very factually, like a history book, and made me groggy.

Exactly! I view the Silmarillion mainly as a history book.

[Nateskate]

On the other hand, what might have been lost without putting in those things? Personally, I don't mind skipping over some stuff every now and then in a story, but coming back later and re-reading it for the richness and taking in all those things.

I started to do that with songs/poems, when I realized I could get through the story faster. And yet there are some great tidbits in those songs and poems.

What's lost? Readers. I'm convinced that the Goldilocks Principle applies to writing, too hot, too cold, and just right.

For instance, could Tad Williams sell tons more books if he prunned down his novels which are the size of Phone Books? I think so. But he's comfortable with it, and enough of his fans are. And yet, could he have generated dozens of movies by changing his tactics? Perhaps. It would be nice if we could foresee possible outcomes.

[Nateskate]

... confession: I'm one of those Tolkien fans who read the Trilogy twice, but who couldn't make it past the first chpt of the Silmarillion. I think it says in the intro that it was left unfinished by him and that his son pieced it together. So I used that as an excuse for why I couldn't get into it. It's been awhile and my memory is vague but as I recall the text read very factually, like a history book, and made me groggy.

The book doesn't read the same all the way through. There are parts that flow and other parts that can be tedious.

Spoiler alert. Don't read on if you plan to read the books:

The story isn't about "Rings of Power". It's about gems "the Silmarilils" which were made by a powerful Elf named Feanor. There were two trees in Valinor which were trees of light, which lit the world before the Sun and the Moon were created.

When Morgoth, who was far more powerful than Sauron, joined forces with Ungoliant - a monster that Shelob was descended from, they attacked Valinor and Ungoliant destroyed the trees. The Light of the Silmarills could have been used to heal the trees, but Feanor refused to give them over, leaving the world in darkness, except for the stars.

This led to wars between the Valar, between Elves and Morgoth.

So, it follows a cohesive plot, with lots of sub-plots. It's absolutely brilliant and far more of a story thread than Lord of the Rings.

I'm not saying it's written better or more fun to read. The Hobbits change the tone of the Lord of the Rings, because there's always comic relief. But once the reader becomes familiar with all the pieces- which unfortunately requires reading it more than once- it's fascinating and enjoyable.

However, sans Hobbits, you get lots of scenes like Gandalf and Lord Denethor butting heads. Humans and Elves. Valor and Elves.

Also, the chapters concerning Numenor and Sauron can be read without knowing the rest of the story, and these are directly related to Lord of the Rings, and worth the price of the book.

[Nateskate]

Do I "rip apart" favorite novels? I pay a LOT of attention to what the author did and why it works. I also look for things that didn't. How else does one learn?

Has another writer ever given me advise I didn't AGREE with? Sure. Lots of times. But grandiose or self-indulgent? What about giving advice is self-indulgent? If they're self-indulgent, I doubt they give advice.

Professionals in any field will see things that others don't. The fact that others don't see these things does not mean that professional standards don't matter. A carpenter will see the faults in the joinery; an architect will see poor design. A writer will see the faults in another's writing and, for that matter, in their own.

Edit: I also look at the Silmarillion more as a history than a normal novel.

We're speaking of Apples and Oranges, in terms of critcism. We all look at things to learn, and have to make distinctions. What I'm talking about is losing objectivety.

Example. Many fathers coach their children and gently critique their performance, both encouraging and making suggestions. However, some fathers are driven, and are way too critical. They miss what their kid is doing right, and may pick them apart constantly. They become overly critical and then they break their kid down, discourage them, and make them want to quit.

Every good coach critiques, but keeps things in perspective. He doesn't point out every flaw, but one at a time.

Being aware of an authors flaws is natural. I don't buy books if I think they stink. I put them down, gag from time to time. However, I also realize that my own growth as a writer has led me to be more critical, and I just was wondering if others saw that tendency, to sometimes hold others to an impossible standard.

The only good writers are great writers. What the world views as good writers, we might view as trite hacks.

[PGK]

But grandiose or self-indulgent? What about giving advice is self-indulgent? If they're self-indulgent, I doubt they give advice.

Advice that is not meant to be helpful to the recipient but an ego-stroke for the person giving it. Whether it's a public stroke (e.g. "look at how great I am, I can tell others how to write") or a private one (e.g. "I'm advising that person to do/not do something because I need to feel more confident in myself" <-Though rarely admitted even to themselves. Or "because I know I'm better so I must strike everyone else down to prove it")

If the advice is not from an honest desire to help another it should probably be withheld.

[Ken]

... given your summary, the Silmarillion actually sounds very cool, Nateskate. May have to give it another go. That's wild that Shelob is a decendent of a famous monster. SHe always struck me as being more important than the role she played in the Rings.

[Nateskate]

... given your summary, the Silmarillion actually sounds very cool, Nateskate. May have to give it another go. That's wild that Shelob is a decendent of a famous monster. SHe always struck me as being more important than the role she played in the Rings.

Initially Ungoliant was the creature Tolkien wrote into Lord of the Rings before he changed the story.

Those nasty spiders in the Hobbit are also descendents of Ungoliant, but not on he level of Shelob. Ungoliant was one of the Maiar- which was like a demon or minor god in mythology. Or a fallen angel.

The Silmarillion is a great book. I'm a little rusty in names, but the Girdle of Melian (a minor god that married an Elf King) was much like the protective realm of Lothlorian. And Galadrial was her disciple; so it's interesting to see that in the Third Age of Middle Earth, Galadrial's power kept Sauron's minions at bay. And it also explains why she wasn't simply another Elf.

Another thing pointed out in the Silmarillion was that Feanor's kin were on another level. They were wiser, stronger, and had more power, just like the Numenorians (Aragorn's descendents) were greater than other men.

So, you have an Elf that kills a Balrog, and one that wounds Morgoth, who is like Sauron on Steroids, far more powerful.

There's so much fun information. Like when dark days are mentioned, you will know how the dwarves and the elves had their falling out. It has to do with the Silmarills.

Another spoiler- The Silmarills were kind of like the One Ring, except on a grander scale. They brought out the worst in everyone.

[SPMiller]

Are authors way too critical of other authors?No, they aren't.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Do I pick apart novels that I love? No. Because I loved them, and that's enough for me to overlook whatever the author did "wrong."

However, I will shred to bits a book that I hated, and go into detail about not just one or two things, but everything the author did "wrong."

The difference is that with the first example, there's something that grabbed me and excited me about the book, and while I'll notice the little nitpicky things that are technically less than stellar, its faults are outweighed by its virtues--it doesn't matter.

The second book has built up enough things that I don't like about it to incite me to full rage, and that's the point when I get hypercritical and start going, "AND FURTHERMORE!" with every little thing I notice.

So I am overly critical, but only if I generally didn't like the book on the whole. If I liked it on the whole, I'm much more lenient.

[willietheshakes]

Adding fodder to the discussion-this is an interesting thread and it made me think of...


"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

~Anton Ego from Ratatouille

Speaking as a critic, and as a writer, the above is feel-good horseshit.

[willietheshakes]

Their job isn't to mislead the movie-watching public. It's to help the public decide which movies are worth seeing, especially critics whose comments are sent out in mass media.


No, that's NOT the role of a critic. That's the role of Consumer Reports.

The role of a critic is to analyze a work on its own terms and to determine whether, to their way of thinking, it works or not, and why or why not. It is to contextualize a work within a larger field of works, both contemporary and historical, and to measure against that field. It is to draw on a level of knowledge and expertise which may (or may not) be greater than that of the lay public and to critically regard a work.

[Nateskate]

Do I pick apart novels that I love? No. Because I loved them, and that's enough for me to overlook whatever the author did "wrong."

However, I will shred to bits a book that I hated, and go into detail about not just one or two things, but everything the author did "wrong."

The difference is that with the first example, there's something that grabbed me and excited me about the book, and while I'll notice the little nitpicky things that are technically less than stellar, its faults are outweighed by its virtues--it doesn't matter.

The second book has built up enough things that I don't like about it to incite me to full rage, and that's the point when I get hypercritical and start going, "AND FURTHERMORE!" with every little thing I notice.

So I am overly critical, but only if I generally didn't like the book on the whole. If I liked it on the whole, I'm much more lenient.

I understand. A book is an investment. Our time is an investment. There are books that piss me off. So, I'm not saying I don't feel similar feelings.

My question is this, do you think you became more critical as you honed your writing skills? I noticed this happening with me, where my idea of good writing continues to change, my tolerance for nitpicky things increases.

In regards to why I think I need to recognize it, is that I know there's a time I need to turn that off to appreciate a book that I like, but has some flaws. And second, to give an objective appraisal of others works, whether a novice seeking my advice, or in giving an opinion whether a writer is good or not.

For instance, Dan Brown. I don't like him. But is he good? I liked the opening to his recent book. It grabbed me and kept my interest. And yet, other writers think he's a hack. I'm I right? Are they right?

I think that the further along our skills get, the harder we will be as critics.

[Nateskate]

No, that's NOT the role of a critic. That's the role of Consumer Reports.

The role of a critic is to analyze a work on its own terms and to determine whether, to their way of thinking, it works or not, and why or why not. It is to contextualize a work within a larger field of works, both contemporary and historical, and to measure against that field. It is to draw on a level of knowledge and expertise which may (or may not) be greater than that of the lay public and to critically regard a work.

Willie, this depends on the audience and the objective. In news, we know that the talking heads will face politics from a perspective, and therefore when they trash ideologies, they are doing so from an ideological perspective. And so there are critics speaking to an audience which may love their venting. I can enjoy other than brain-bending movies. If I read USA today, or the local news, I want someone who speak to the general audience's perspectives, who can see through their eyes to know what will move them.

USA today critics aren't speaking only to french college professors, they're saying whether a movie is entertaining, or thought provoking. They're speaking to the general public about the value of a movie.

I don't want an arrogant spewing they're smarter than me and know what's best for me. If they're speaking to intellectual elites, and not the general public, that's not what I look for in the local papers. If that's the case, I won't even read their appraisals at all.

[Rhoda Nightingale]

My question is this, do you think you became more critical as you honed your writing skills? I noticed this happening with me, where my idea of good writing continues to change, my tolerance for nitpicky things increases.
Oh, definitely. There are some books that I read when I was younger that I can't stand to read anymore. Not many, but they're out there. I'm not as bad about it as I was when I first started to really, really self-edit, but I notice a lot more than I did before that time.

In regards to why I think I need to recognize it, is that I know there's a time I need to turn that off to appreciate a book that I like, but has some flaws. And second, to give an objective appraisal of others works, whether a novice seeking my advice, or in giving an opinion whether a writer is good or not.

For instance, Dan Brown. I don't like him. But is he good? I liked the opening to his recent book. It grabbed me and kept my interest. And yet, other writers think he's a hack. I'm I right? Are they right?
Anyone wildly popular and successful is in a slightly different category I think. Some of us have a knee-jerk tendency to shred any writer who we feel is only mediocre but is making bank. I personally get that way about Stephenie Meyer sometimes, for the simple reason that I know I've worked harder on my unpublished works than she has, and I'm pretty damn sure I'm never going to equal her in terms of book sales. It's petty, but there it is.

[willietheshakes]

Willie, this depends on the audience and the objective. In news, we know that the talking heads will face politics from a perspective, and therefore when they trash ideologies, they are doing so from an ideological perspective. And so there are critics speaking to an audience which may love their venting. I can enjoy other than brain-bending movies. If I read USA today, or the local news, I want someone who speak to the general audience's perspectives, who can see through their eyes to know what will move them.

USA today critics aren't speaking only to french college professors, they're saying whether a movie is entertaining, or thought provoking. They're speaking to the general public about the value of a movie.

I don't want an arrogant spewing they're smarter than me and know what's best for me. If they're speaking to intellectual elites, and not the general public, that's not what I look for in the local papers. If that's the case, I won't even read their appraisals at all.

I'm not talking about elitism, or intellectualism (though why intellectualism has become a bad thing is beyond me) -- it's about treating a work of art as something worthy of scrutiny, then scrutinizing it.

To go back to Avatar, your example, there is nothing elitist about saying that the plotline is derivative and overly familiar, while at the same time praising its technological prowess and commenting on how it handles that familiar material. That's how contextualization works, and how it should work. That's what a critic does.

To take it back to books, look at The Da Vinci Code -- millions of readers loved it, and the opinion of critics doesn't make a difference to that. But noting that the prose is clunky and that many of the "new" theories will be familiar to people who are familiar with Grail lore isn't elitist -- they're simply statements of fact.

[Nateskate]

Oh, definitely. There are some books that I read when I was younger that I can't stand to read anymore. Not many, but they're out there. I'm not as bad about it as I was when I first started to really, really self-edit, but I notice a lot more than I did before that time.

Anyone wildly popular and successful is in a slightly different category I think. Some of us have a knee-jerk tendency to shred any writer who we feel is only mediocre but is making bank. I personally get that way about Stephenie Meyer sometimes, for the simple reason that I know I've worked harder on my unpublished works than she has, and I'm pretty damn sure I'm never going to equal her in terms of book sales. It's petty, but there it is.

Your comments are so refreshing, because my initial post wasn't one of putting down writers that are critical, but about self-awareness. Have we become too critical?

Some might argue that others aren't critical enough; but there is this gap between non-writers and writers- I think.

If the first people that read my book were other authors, I'd have been dead in the water. But I didn't write for writers, and I had so many flaws in my writing. They'd have tagged me and bagged me with how bad I was.

I wrote a story for a bunch of friends to read, to entertain them just like baking a cake for friends- except it just kept getting longer and longer, and gaining new fans. They loved it and pushed me to publish.

Had there been an editor, publisher, or seasoned writer in the bunch, they'd have laughed them to scorn, and rightly so. In fact, I knew my stuff wasn't nearly good enough. I simply didn't have the skills to tell my story. However, I began to believe in my story, that it was worth fighting to fix.

I know that I know I'd tell people that their books are not good enough to publish, including authors that are already published, on the bestsellers list. That helps me to realize that my appraisal button isn't working. I may do what other writers do, but I'm becoming self-aware that my standard is too high, at least to give an objective appraisal.

[Ken]

... I think I could write a paraphrased version of the Silmarillion that would be a smash hit.

... quite possibly true. After reading your summary of the book yesterday I had a dream that night with a warlock in it! (Not too scary though. She was a good warlock, and attractive too.)

[Toothpaste]

So when someone says they critique others because possibly they are being a little petty you are refreshed at their honesty, but when others say that they don't do that, you think they are keeping something from you? Seems you came to this thread with the answer to your question already.

Honestly, I think there are many different types of people on this planet and many different reasons for doing what they do. I, for example, do not care that Meyer's road to success was quick and easy, I openly critique her as often as I do because I think her books present a terrible role model and a terrible model for love. Not because I'm jealous. I too am a reviewer (of films) and I think critical analysis is perfectly acceptable in all forms of art. I consider my standards not to be "too high", but to be my standards. I enjoy that I expect a lot out of my films/books etc, and what this means is when something meets those standards I am over the moon. I can at the same time enjoy fluff despite knowing my critical self would pan whatever it was, but you see when I'm a reviewer I'm doing exactly what willie does, I'm looking at a piece of work through a very particular lens.

If someone wants me to critique their work, I'll do so and I'll be as thorough as I usually am. If someone gives me their work to simply enjoy, I'll do that too.

I think it's also a fallacy to suggest that your appraisal button isn't working because you dislike popular books. Your conclusion suggests that if something is popular it therefore means it must be universally appealing. That's absurd. We all have our own tastes and standards. Now to dismiss work that's popular, that's not good, but to think that "Well everyone likes it, I guess I'm just too critical" is wrong. Like what you like for the reasons you like it, and dislike what you dislike for those same reasons. True, it is worth analysing why what you dislike does so well, but it doesn't mean you have to therefore like it.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that many people out there weren't as critical as I was about art. And I concluded that that was perfectly fine. I won't judge them, if they won't judge me. I'm happy with my standards. I live a delightful life.

[Moost]

I haven't read the entire thread but in response to the original post, I think writers need to re-learn how they read. I'm speaking more in a beta-critique sense than picking up a bestseller and taking it home.

I am a tutor at my university's academic writing center. Although we rarely get creative writing pieces, we're instructed not to approach the student's text in certain ways. The primary no-no is to assume we are working towards developing an ideal text. The tutor has to accept the writer's ideas and style and not change them to fit their own tastes.

We all have an opinion of what good writing is, but when "helping" or fellow writers, we have to keep in mind that if everyone wrote like we did, there wouldn't be much diversity on the shelves.

[Nateskate]

... quite possibly true. After reading your summary of the book yesterday I had a dream that night with a warlock in it! (Not too scary though. She was a good warlock, and attractive too.)

It's possible. Loyalists wouldn't read it though. It's sort of anathama to touch Tolkien's works. Even so, I wrote the beginning of a novel where as Gandalf rode off towards the West, he sent back a message to Aragorn about the darker and fouler creatures in the deep places of this world, a warning that Sauron was not by far the worst threat.

And of course, some fool would conjure those deeper darker dangers.

When you're moved by a creative work, sometimes you hate to see it end, especially if other stories of that calibre don't come along everyday.

[Nateskate]

So when someone says they critique others because possibly they are being a little petty you are refreshed at their honesty, but when others say that they don't do that, you think they are keeping something from you? Seems you came to this thread with the answer to your question already.

Honestly, I think there are many different types of people on this planet and many different reasons for doing what they do. I, for example, do not care that Meyer's road to success was quick and easy, I openly critique her as often as I do because I think her books present a terrible role model and a terrible model for love. Not because I'm jealous. I too am a reviewer (of films) and I think critical analysis is perfectly acceptable in all forms of art. I consider my standards not to be "too high", but to be my standards. I enjoy that I expect a lot out of my films/books etc, and what this means is when something meets those standards I am over the moon. I can at the same time enjoy fluff despite knowing my critical self would pan whatever it was, but you see when I'm a reviewer I'm doing exactly what willie does, I'm looking at a piece of work through a very particular lens.

If someone wants me to critique their work, I'll do so and I'll be as thorough as I usually am. If someone gives me their work to simply enjoy, I'll do that too.

I think it's also a fallacy to suggest that your appraisal button isn't working because you dislike popular books. Your conclusion suggests that if something is popular it therefore means it must be universally appealing. That's absurd. We all have our own tastes and standards. Now to dismiss work that's popular, that's not good, but to think that "Well everyone likes it, I guess I'm just too critical" is wrong. Like what you like for the reasons you like it, and dislike what you dislike for those same reasons. True, it is worth analysing why what you dislike does so well, but it doesn't mean you have to therefore like it.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that many people out there weren't as critical as I was about art. And I concluded that that was perfectly fine. I won't judge them, if they won't judge me. I'm happy with my standards. I live a delightful life.

Hi, and thanks for sharing. There are good critics and there are bad critics. It's just like the Wizard of Oz.

And I think that those who do it for a living, like yourself, have to work out a personal philosophy of who you're writing for, which I'm certain you do.

We are all allowed to have an opinion, and varied tastes. I'm not saying this to slam critics, because the world wants critics who will help us sort through things so we won't waste time and money on seeing, reading, hearing, things not worth our time and money.

There are people here who edit books for a living, and they do a wonderful job. I've once said that there are probably hundreds of people here that can write my novels better than me- in the sense that they have a writing gift that surpasses mine, whether or not they could conceive a story like mine.

However, those hundreds of people didn't volunteer to help, and so I fought through to get my novels as right as I could, to make them readable, and hopefully beloved by some.

And someday I'll be critiqued and all that, and maybe I'll be panned. Who knows?

Yet, I think we always have to ask ourselves are we being objective, realistic? And I think that at times we humans can fail to meet those two objectives.

[FOTSGreg]

Editors don't know everything. They see your writing through a veil of a thousand other manuscripts that they've been reading the same month. They develop their own tastes, prejudices, and idio/egocentric patterns and preferences.

If you don't think those patterns and idio/egocentricities extend to reading the slush you're only fooling yourself.

The trick is to write a story that doesn't pander to an editor, but tells a good story. If any particular editor rejects your story, well, it's their loss.

If an editor actually accepts your story, then you must work with that editor to tweak your story such that it works best and fits best with that editor's publication.

Arguing with an editor prior to acceptance is simply a waste of your time and effort. Wait until after you're accepted (and you have the check cashed).

[Nateskate]

I haven't read the entire thread but in response to the original post, I think writers need to re-learn how they read. I'm speaking more in a beta-critique sense than picking up a bestseller and taking it home.

I am a tutor at my university's academic writing center. Although we rarely get creative writing pieces, we're instructed not to approach the student's text in certain ways. The primary no-no is to assume we are working towards developing an ideal text. The tutor has to accept the writer's ideas and style and not change them to fit their own tastes.

We all have an opinion of what good writing is, but when "helping" or fellow writers, we have to keep in mind that if everyone wrote like we did, there wouldn't be much diversity on the shelves.

I'm so glad you posted this, because I think that in your role you do have to look at this entirely differently.

There is a huge difference between giving our opinion about a famous author, who can care less about our opinion, and a novice that asks our opinion in order to learn.

I was a volunteer coach who worked with kids from 7-9th grades, where kids are at varied levels of development. The key isn't to tell them everything they do wrong, or to objectively point out that they stink- it's to identify potential and help someone to realize that.

The approach of some who think they are being asked to eviscerate an author, is sometimes harsh and demeaning, though it's not intended to be.

I used the opening of Dan Brown's novel to make the point, because in another thread, many are saying it's bad writing.

And here it becomes a simple logic math formula. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. If someone here thinks Dan Brown is a hack. And he thinks that this novice is a hack. There is a chance that the novice is far better/ has more potential, than they give them credit for.

Many novices would love to write like Dan Brown, whether the writing community loves him or not.

Of course, the novice may be a hack who doesn't have a gift for writing. But even so, it's better to err on the side of encouragement than discouragement if we're to err at all. Because the one who has no potential will eventually get that. There's no lack of people who will tell them that. But the one that does have potential may quit because someone was too harsh and made them give up on themselves.

I'm not saying we should lie, or give false praise. Other's harsh criticism of my writing helped me. But I had people that loved my writing to offset that and keep me going.

[kuwisdelu]

There are also different degrees of "bad" and "good," and we don't always mean the say thing.

I don't think Dan Brown is a bad writer. I just don't think he's a good writer. It's publishable, but it's not what i enjoy.

[Nateskate]

Editors don't know everything. They see your writing through a veil of a thousand other manuscripts that they've been reading the same month. They develop their own tastes, prejudices, and idio/egocentric patterns and preferences.

If you don't think those patterns and idio/egocentricities extend to reading the slush you're only fooling yourself.

The trick is to write a story that doesn't pander to an editor, but tells a good story. If any particular editor rejects your story, well, it's their loss.

If an editor actually accepts your story, then you must work with that editor to tweak your story such that it works best and fits best with that editor's publication.

Arguing with an editor prior to acceptance is simply a waste of your time and effort. Wait until after you're accepted (and you have the check cashed).

This is good advice. I've never been in a position to argue with an editor, only to clarify my objective to one publisher who wanted me to clarify what readership I was aiming for. I wasn't shooting for the "Harry Potter" market. I told them my series was more like Lord of the Rings. Well, I can't say I wasn't never in the position; but I've never argued with a suggestion from someone trying to sell my novels. "Yes maam, can I shine your shoes while I'm making changes..." If they're looking out for my welfare, I take that very seriously, and try not to be a pain. If they want a character's name changed, normally that's fine. In Book One I might be adding a chapter to break up one long scene in the story.

When I wrote for a magazine, one editor told me to make changes that I didn't understand. They wanted me to reformat an interview, and I just gave it to someone else to write because it was just beyond my skill level. I did the interview, but ended up just giving over all my notes.

My post was not aimed at the people who are in the business of judging manuscripts for a living, agents, editors, publishers. It's true what you're saying from agents I've spoken to.

Slush piles are daunting. Publishers don't even have time to answer emails. With the one magazine, I was a features writer, and it would get frustrating when I needed clarifications, but the poor Publisher was always swamped during deadline time. Everyone needed a piece of his time.

[Cathy C]

Alas . . . I love Dan Brown as well. Mind you, I would have ended "The Lost Symbol" two chapters earlier. It became anticlimatic for no reason other than to finish up a secondary plot. But I loved it nonetheless.

One of the things I find interesting in my own writing is that while I like to READ a fast-moving, plot driven book with two dimensional characters, I like to WRITE fast-moving, plot driven books with intensely three-dimensional characters. Why do I read one but write the other? I haven't a freaking clue. LOL! Maybe because reading is for entertainment and I don't like my entertainment too deep? Make me laugh and I'm happy. Create explosions and I'm thrilled. Do both and WOW! You've got my heart forever.

But I can't write that way. My people are real and they do things for sometimes bizarre reasons (like we all do.) Their illogic is perfectly logical once you know their mindset and reasoning.

So I like Dan Brown, and Clive Cussler and Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling. They spin a great story and I'll go along for the ride. Maybe my writing abilities haven't gotten me too far past the sheer pleasure of reading after all. And that makes me :)

[Nateskate]

There are also different degrees of "bad" and "good," and we don't always mean the say thing.

I don't think Dan Brown is a bad writer. I just don't think he's a good writer. It's publishable, but it's not what i enjoy.

Well said. I think that is closer to the point of separating skills and preference. We all have a preference. I hate really good writing. Not Mark Twain, or Tolkien stuff. I love them and also like Dickens.

I hate much of what I was forced to read in school. I hated the Scarlet Letter. ...etc.

Was it good writing? Was it good for the time it was written in? The fact that I hated it didn't mean it was bad. It could be a greater judgment on my lack as a reader. And I am a bad reader. A slow reader. A picky reader. So, I realize I'm not good at judging literature.

However, I also know what I like. And I think I like much of what people consider bad. Then again, what does that say for me? It's not flattering.

Here's something I notice. I think I like YA fantasy. I love most of G.P Taylor's quirky stories which are aimed at the Harry Potter audience.

[Nateskate]

Alas . . . I love Dan Brown as well. Mind you, I would have ended "The Lost Symbol" two chapters earlier. It became anticlimatic for no reason other than to finish up a secondary plot. But I loved it nonetheless.

One of the things I find interesting in my own writing is that while I like to READ a fast-moving, plot driven book with two dimensional characters, I like to WRITE fast-moving, plot driven books with intensely three-dimensional characters. Why do I read one but write the other? I haven't a freaking clue. LOL! Maybe because reading is for entertainment and I don't like my entertainment too deep? Make me laugh and I'm happy. Create explosions and I'm thrilled. Do both and WOW! You've got my heart forever.

But I can't write that way. My people are real and they do things for sometimes bizarre reasons (like we all do.) Their illogic is perfectly logical once you know their mindset and reasoning.

So I like Dan Brown, and Clive Cussler and Stephenie Meyer and J.K. Rowling. They spin a great story and I'll go along for the ride. Maybe my writing abilities haven't gotten me too far past the sheer pleasure of reading after all. And that makes me :)

I love your honesty. And I understand your point about enjoying two-dimensional characters, vs three-dimensional. I grew up loving comic books- lol.

When I write, my characters are far more complex than people read on the page. But my evil characters are two dimensional, completely given over to depravity. It gets Disney to show that the Grinch was bullied and tormented as a kid. A really good bad guy defies logic IMO. Sauron wasn't a sympathetic figure. You knew he'd drive in the nails if given the chance.

[kuwisdelu]

I thought Sauron was sympathetic... given his backstory, anyway.

[Nateskate]

I thought Sauron was sympathetic... given his backstory, anyway.


It would have been easier to use Morgoth as an example. But even so, Morgoth and Sauron only showed signs of change under extreme duress, their capture and imprisonment. Otherwise they were bent only on cruelty and domination. And Morgoth's repentence was feigned.

Also, the initial readers of LOTR never had the backstory. For them, Sauron was introduced as a tyrant.

[Cathy C]

I like to create villains with "layers" of villainy. My bad guys aren't the hero in their own minds. They're the villain. They enjoy the challenge that good guys present but anyone who's a little bit TOO good---either in skill or morality---becomes a nuisance. Those have to be eliminated.

I don't like villains who are too easy to defeat. Mine are smart, vicious and love pain and death for the sheer pleasure of it. But they also have their own, quirky morality that makes people . . . frankly, worry. Because I let my villains do all the things that the reader wants to do if the constraints of civilization were off of them. And then people start to like them. they hate themselves for it, but there's something truly satisfying about watching a bad guy do something horrible to an even more annoying bad guy. Someone cuts in front of you in line and flips you off when you tell them to get to the back, after you've been there for an hour? Snap, twist. Break their neck and step over them. Find a guy who thinks rape is fun and gosh, let's find out how THEY like it---with knives. :evil

I use that technique in the book about to hit the shelves this week, Serpent Moon. I've got a chapter where it opens with one man chained down and the other about to do horrible things to get information out of him. You immediately hate the person standing over the chained man, the one who's sharpening the knives. But then you find out the "victim" is an even bigger bad guy and the man who's chained him has gotten sick and tired of cleaning up after the mess of bodies the "victim" has left behind and has decided he's too much of a loose cannon to survive.

So who's the villain?

Both, really. But the reader winds up semi-identifying with the vicious, but thoughtful guy over the sadistic a$$hole in chains. And then you've hooked them because the reader has got to see either his comeuppance or his triumph. Sort of like Hannibal Lecter. You want to hate him, but it's really hard because it sounds so . . . logical when he explains things. :D

[Katrina S. Forest]

I think there's a big difference between being critical and being whiny. I know several popular books that are not written well, though I see why they are popular. Just because the book is popular, that doesn't mean that all critical writers are whiny when they point out what's wrong with it. In many cases, they may simply be expressing what non-writers also noticed. A non-writer might say the MC is boring. A writer might say the MC has no internal conflict. They're both pointing out a flaw.

On the flipside, I also know several popular books that are written well, and I love them.
If I'm reading an author I respect and notice they broke a "rule" such as using a lot of adjectives or adverbs, I'll try to look at it again and think, "Why does this work here?"

[Cathy C]

If I'm reading an author I respect and notice they broke a "rule" such as using a lot of adjectives or adverbs, I'll try to look at it again and think, "Why does this work here?"

This is an important point to remember. Sometimes the "da rules" we learn in the writing process are broken and the reader doesn't care. That doesn't mean it'll work in the next book or even your book, but it's worth looking at critically and considering when critiquing whether to apply broad brush strokes of rules to a piece that works EXCEPT for the rule breaking.

I find it frustrating as a critiquer when others in the same thread slap labels on something. "No prologues! Editors hate prologues." (Then why are there successful authors who ALWAYS have prologues? :Huh: ) "Use proper grammar" (Except people don't SPEAK in proper grammar, so it sounds stilted when it appears.) "You've got too many fragments of speech" or even "Your sentences are too long." Blah, blah.

The truth is that yes, there are rules of writing and it's best to follow them, but only to the extent it doesn't constrain your ability to write at all and doesn't ruin the story. Some stories work best when left at their quirky best.

I do quite a few critiques. A lot of them are from charity auctions where I've donated my time. When people pay really good money for a critique (and I've had people pay over a thousand), they don't want to have the book torn down unless you also offer a way to rebuild it. They don't want labels or a list of da rules.

For a long time, I was agreeing to read partials (less money to the charity but less time, too) Sometimes you can discover the entire problem with a book through a sample. Really. But I kept encountering people who were frustrated beyond words because the query netted a partial request. The partial netted a full request. And then . . . poof. No offer. Just a rejection with no explanation. :(

What went wrong? And the problem is they really, TRULY don't know. It seemed like it should have sailed right through.

Usually I find a plot hole big enough to drive a moving van through. Sometimes it's a series of small logic errors that turn a promising idea into a "wall-banger." I did that myself in our first book. Our first edit letter was TWENTY-EIGHT single spaced pages of stupid, niggling problems. :eek: Yeah. Really. They were easily fixed but I thank dog that the editor was willing to see past them and see a ms. that was fixable. But you can't depend on that happening every time. So I learned how to fix things and can now spot errors that will make an editor bald from pulling at their hair.

It's important to be honest in critiques but also look at the samples through the eyes of a reader first. If there are too many adverbs but you read it without stopping, then maybe there AREN'T too many adverbs. If the character is two-dimensional but the plot ROCKS, be cautious about advising GMC because that added depth could distract from and ruin the tension of said plot.

My .02, FWIW. :)

[shaldna]

There are also different degrees of "bad" and "good," and we don't always mean the say thing.

I don't think Dan Brown is a bad writer. I just don't think he's a good writer. It's publishable, but it's not what i enjoy.


this is interesting.

dan brown is one of those oddities - his writing may lack passion and development, but in a technical sense it's perfect - grammar, sentance structure, rhythm etc. i think he writes like a robot, he understands the principles and the technique, but not the art.

but that's a different sort of bad to someone like stephenie meyer. her writing is very technically imperfect, with awkward sentance structures, misused words and frequently poor grammar.

in my eyes they are both 'bad' writers, but for technical reasons rather than creative.

[Nateskate]

I like to create villains with "layers" of villainy. My bad guys aren't the hero in their own minds. They're the villain. They enjoy the challenge that good guys present but anyone who's a little bit TOO good---either in skill or morality---becomes a nuisance. Those have to be eliminated.

I don't like villains who are too easy to defeat. Mine are smart, vicious and love pain and death for the sheer pleasure of it. But they also have their own, quirky morality that makes people . . . frankly, worry. Because I let my villains do all the things that the reader wants to do if the constraints of civilization were off of them. And then people start to like them. they hate themselves for it, but there's something truly satisfying about watching a bad guy do something horrible to an even more annoying bad guy. Someone cuts in front of you in line and flips you off when you tell them to get to the back, after you've been there for an hour? Snap, twist. Break their neck and step over them. Find a guy who thinks rape is fun and gosh, let's find out how THEY like it---with knives. :evil

I use that technique in the book about to hit the shelves this week, Serpent Moon. I've got a chapter where it opens with one man chained down and the other about to do horrible things to get information out of him. You immediately hate the person standing over the chained man, the one who's sharpening the knives. But then you find out the "victim" is an even bigger bad guy and the man who's chained him has gotten sick and tired of cleaning up after the mess of bodies the "victim" has left behind and has decided he's too much of a loose cannon to survive.

So who's the villain?

Both, really. But the reader winds up semi-identifying with the vicious, but thoughtful guy over the sadistic a$$hole in chains. And then you've hooked them because the reader has got to see either his comeuppance or his triumph. Sort of like Hannibal Lecter. You want to hate him, but it's really hard because it sounds so . . . logical when he explains things. :D

David Gemmel did much the same, and he's one of my favorite authors. At some point in his story, the enemy shows a sympathetic side. Donaldson has pure enemies, Lord Foul...etc. He's another of my favorite authors.

You've obviously come up with a great formula because your novels make an impact. And both styles can work well.

None of my characters are pure, at least not like Snow White. They're all like the rest of us, stumbling along in life. I choose to use people who've made mostly bad decisions, and they'll keep coming to forks in the road where more choices will define them.

No spoilers, because this is essentially the emotional framework: The story begins with a mother who is co-dependent, an enabler. She made bad decisions that left her a widow with no support system. And because of this her son is at risk. It's only her and him, and she's given him no boundaries, assuming her son needs to learn to survive without her if something happens.

The kid just turned fifteen, and he's gone off with his friends, and he's four days late returning, triggering all of her insecurities. Will she reap what she's sown? The kid is a charming accident waiting to happen.

Now, this good-natured kid loves his mother, but being a pauper who is tormented by friends, he has a point to prove. He's learned to survive, and presumes he can handle himself, not knowing what lurks beyond his known world.

To prove his worth, he is convinced that he can go to what is thought to be a haunted forest to bring back a token. And he's not used to hearing "no", and not getting his way.

Most characters in my story have a past history. I know what's going on in their heads. When they come to a crossroad, I don't always predetermine if they'll do something smart or stupid. Stupid often makes the story more interesting.

[shaldna]

None of my characters are pure, at least not like Snow White. They're all like the rest of us, stumbling along in life. I choose to use people who've made mostly bad decisions, and they'll keep coming to forks in the road where more choices will define them.

There but for the grace of god go I.

Most people can relate to this better than they could to a person who was 'bad' for sake of being bad.

[Nateskate]

There but for the grace of god go I.

Most people can relate to this better than they could to a person who was 'bad' for sake of being bad.

Hi Shaldna. That's true.

I've tried to incorporate "real" people, although some have a larger than life quality, especially the evil ones. As a kid, I really enjoyed the dreadful Captain Hook, and the Wicked Witch of the West. And then there's Sauron.

I don't delve a great deal into the background of my evil characters, because none of them are sympathetic figures. There are clues as to what drives them.

But the other characters are much deeper. They are almost all flawed, but they have redeeming qualities. Many have loveable qualities. Some grow, some stagnate. That's what we see in real life. It's like reality television where you might root for a castmate to get with the program, and they still self-destruct. And you want to reach through the pages and bop them.

In the prequels to these stories, which may change greatly if the time ever comes to release them, it's much like Tolkien's Silmarillion, which literally begins at the beginning. In those stories, I do spend more time developing how humans go from a pure state of contentment to really screwed up and violent. Because I've often pondered the psychology behind getting screwed-up.

Fear and anger are two of the most powerful human emotions when it comes to hurting others and self-destruction.

[kuwisdelu]

this is interesting.

dan brown is one of those oddities - his writing may lack passion and development, but in a technical sense it's perfect - grammar, sentance structure, rhythm etc. i think he writes like a robot, he understands the principles and the technique, but not the art.

but that's a different sort of bad to someone like stephenie meyer. her writing is very technically imperfect, with awkward sentance structures, misused words and frequently poor grammar.

in my eyes they are both 'bad' writers, but for technical reasons rather than creative.

Perfect grammar is easy.

But you think Dan Brown has good sentence structure and rhythm?

Well, I guess sometimes it's a matter of taste, but for me that proposition is a resounding "god no." He has great pacing, yes. He has horrid rhythm (IMO).

[Nateskate]

Perfect grammar is easy.

But you think Dan Brown has good sentence structure and rhythm?

Well, I guess sometimes it's a matter of taste, but for me that proposition is a resounding "god no." He has great pacing, yes. He has horrid rhythm (IMO).

I laughed- perfect grammar has never been easy for me. Then again, good sentence structure and rhythm are also constant battles. Writing looked so much easier before I tried it.

[kuwisdelu]

Well, "easy" at least in that there are objective rules, unlike most other writerly things, however much new writers would like there to be sometimes (it seems).

But then, of course, there's also knowing when to break them ;)

[LOG]

For me, it's always seemed that criticism was part of the game.
To critically read and explicate anothers work is vital so that by doing so we may examine and then replicate it's strengths, while avoiding its weaknesses.

[Nateskate]

Well, "easy" at least in that there are objective rules, unlike most other writerly things, however much new writers would like there to be sometimes (it seems).

But then, of course, there's also knowing when to break them ;)

That's okay. I realize that some take to grammar like a fish to water. I had a somewhat chaotic dysfunctional childhood, and missed huge chunks of school where the groundwork was laid. Throw in a touch of ADHD, and writing has been an uphill battle.

All the same, I'm stubborn enough to fight through it, holding onto the dream.

[Nateskate]

For me, it's always seemed that criticism was part of the game.
To critically read and explicate anothers work is vital so that by doing so we may examine and then replicate it's strengths, while avoiding its weaknesses.

You're right. Constructive criticism is essential to growth. I'm not against criticism. I invite my agent, editors to make suggestions, despite the fact that this will make more work for me. Why? Because they're trying to help me strengthen my story, to help my success.

But I see two different gifts at work, and perhaps some people have both gifts. Editing and writing are two different beasts. Some can edit, but can't write a story. Some can write a story, but they stink at editing.

And with novices there's a third gift, teaching, which is not simply saying, do this or this, but explaining why in such a way as they walk away understanding how to do that.

[Kitty27]

It depends on the writer's personality. I dread any of my work being critiqued by the writer than thou type. These are know it alls who know everything about publishing, hidebound about "rules" of writing(which they don't mind repeating to infinity and sending you links to said rules),and are often quite insufferable. They respond to innocent questions with snobbish responses and offer no help whatsoever. They don't even see the story or writing ability because they are too busy talking about grammar,technique,and how the book should be written,which is always according to their standards and rules. I had the displeasure of dealing with these writer snobs and I avoid them like the plague.

There are also writers who read stories and see talent far greater than their own. They are also known as haters. They will rip a story to shreds and offer no critique or help whatsoever.

The best kind of writer takes off their writer hat and becomes a reader. No long ass speeches about how things should be done and snobbery. No hating. They read the story and offer helpful,blunt,and much needed advice. They are a treasure and hard to find.

I will beta-read and I am very blunt. So I might not be suited for everyone,especially if the writer is sensitive.

[Nateskate]

It depends on the writer's personality. I dread any of my work being critiqued by the writer than thou type. These are know it alls who know everything about publishing, hidebound about "rules" of writing(which they don't mind repeating to infinity and sending you links to said rules),and are often quite insufferable. They respond to innocent questions with snobbish responses and offer no help whatsoever. They don't even see the story or writing ability because they are too busy talking about grammar,technique,and how the book should be written,which is always according to their standards and rules. I had the displeasure of dealing with these writer snobs and I avoid them like the plague.

There are also writers who read stories and see talent far greater than their own. They are also known as haters. They will rip a story to shreds and offer no critique or help whatsoever.

The best kind of writer takes off their writer hat and becomes a reader. No long ass speeches about how things should be done and snobbery. No hating. They read the story and offer helpful,blunt,and much needed advice. They are a treasure and hard to find.

I will beta-read and I am very blunt. So I might not be suited for everyone,especially if the writer is sensitive.

Kitty, I think that you really have seen the wide spectrum of "types" of writer-reader. "Writer than thou", that's quotable.

I'll admit that it's hard for me to put on the "Reader" hat. I want to "fix" things. And I think it's important for me to always remember that when I do read other people's works.

When a mentor is overly critical they're almost like an overbearing parent. There's a way to be honest and help someone see whether they have talent that can be developed and how.

I have learned much, even from people whose words almost seemed cruel, because they've forced me to learn and better my stories. But I had all of those positive Betas to offset that, so that I didn't take the criticism too harshly.

[penny manning]

It's one thing for critiquers to point out story flaws and give suggestions and advice, but it is another thing to be blunt to the point of being demeaning.

Critiquing is a skill. Some people point out flaws with such hate-filled lust that they are cruel. Sure, one might get good advice, but in the process, the person receiving the critique has their spirit crushed or bruised. Critiquers forget that most members are not learned in the era or genre they are writing in. One can read, research and do a host of things, but it still won't get the story to be where it needs to be. It isn't possible to know everything on your own.

For instance, I'm writing a novel based in Late 18th century England. There is limited in-depth information for this century, so I find myself depending on movies based on the era. I posted a scene where the MC and his brother stopped the carriage they were driving, jumped down from the perch and busied themselves with something nearby. A critiquer points out that the horses might not remain still without being hitched to something.

I had no idea that a coachman would have to be sitting in the perch at all times to ensure the horses didn't, perhaps, take off. That was great information I would not have known otherwise. In the movies I never noticed that a team of four needed to be hitched--maybe because in the movies a coachman or footman was always present.

Now, while one critiquer pointed out my mistake nicely enough (probably chuckling to herself), another critiquer was a bit more critical and a third was very gentle.

A critiquer can be critical without deflating someone's spirit. When a person is being mean about my work, that doesn't help me overall. Even though they may be setting forth useful advice, my personality will focus more on the negative tone than the good advice wading in it. The more negative critiques I receive, the more I'll hate my writing and doubt my ability to put two coherent sentences together.

I believe that a lot of members are like me and don't receive support from friends or family. Therefore forums like AW become a sort of last resort. Like it or not, many AWers need their writing confidence strengthened. There's plenty time later for tough(en)ing up. AW could be an excellent platform for boosting writer confidence, but it is riddled with members who have a zeal for cruelty. Being honest does not mean one has to stomp on another person's efforts.

[wrangler]

probably. i can see the logic behind your statement.

[Nateskate]

It's one thing for critiquers to point out story flaws and give suggestions and advice, but it is another thing to be blunt to the point of being demeaning.

Critiquing is a skill. Some people point out flaws with such hate-filled lust that they are cruel. Sure, one might get good advice, but in the process, the person receiving the critique has their spirit crushed or bruised. Critiquers forget that most members are not learned in the era or genre they are writing in. One can read, research and do a host of things, but it still won't get the story to be where it needs to be. It isn't possible to know everything on your own.

For instance, I'm writing a novel based in Late 18th century England. There is limited in-depth information for this century, so I find myself depending on movies based on the era. I posted a scene where the MC and his brother stopped the carriage they were driving, jumped down from the perch and busied themselves with something nearby. A critiquer points out that the horses might not remain still without being hitched to something.

I had no idea that a coachman would have to be sitting in the perch at all times to ensure the horses didn't, perhaps, take off. That was great information I would not have known otherwise. In the movies I never noticed that a team of four needed to be hitched--maybe because in the movies a coachman or footman was always present.

Now, while one critiquer pointed out my mistake nicely enough (probably chuckling to herself), another critiquer was a bit more critical and a third was very gentle.

A critiquer can be critical without deflating someone's spirit. When a person is being mean about my work, that doesn't help me overall. Even though they may be setting forth useful advice, my personality will focus more on the negative tone than the good advice wading in it. The more negative critiques I receive, the more I'll hate my writing and doubt my ability to put two coherent sentences together.

I believe that a lot of members are like me and don't receive support from friends or family. Therefore forums like AW become a sort of last resort. Like it or not, many AWers need their writing confidence strengthened. There's plenty time later for toughing up. AW could be an excellent platform for boosting writer confidence, but it is riddled with members who have a zeal for cruelty. Being honest does not mean one has to stomp on another person's efforts.

I love your spirit. And it would be wonderful if people would indeed see through a more nurturing, rather than demeaning, filter.

But I would have given you a fourth perspective. If it's well written, most people aren't going to know enough about horsemen and hitching to even notice.

Again, this is the problem with trying to critique from an expert perspective. An expert will always hold us to a higher standard, and even a higher standard than agents, publishers, and the general public. Some authors will indeed try to master every aspect of the knowledge base, but at a price.

Something like your passage might get some readers unhitched, but people like me, I'd never have noticed and kept reading.

Along time ago I stopped writing for experts, because I became so bound in research that I was slogging through the story. I know people will find fault with my novels, but I think that more will love the stories despite those little details. And I'll get a letter from someone saying, "Great story, but it should have taken seventeen days to go from West Forest to the Desert! Your character made it in twelve." - dang, I forgot to mention he hitched a ride at Old Fork- sorry.

Some things have to be inferred even if they're not spelled out.

[penny manning]

I love your spirit. And it would be wonderful if people would indeed see through a more nurturing, rather than demeaning, filter.

But I would have given you a fourth perspective. If it's well written, most people aren't going to know enough about horsemen and hitching to even notice.

Again, this is the problem with trying to critique from an expert perspective. An expert will always hold us to a higher standard, and even a higher standard than agents, publishers, and the general public. Some authors will indeed try to master every aspect of the knowledge base, but at a price.

Something like your passage might get some readers unhitched, but people like me, I'd never have noticed and kept reading.

Along time ago I stopped writing for experts, because I became so bound in research that I was slogging through the story. I know people will find fault with my novels, but I think that more will love the stories despite those little details. And I'll get a letter from someone saying, "Great story, but it should have taken seventeen days to go from West Forest to the Desert! Your character made it in twelve." - dang, I forgot to mention he hitched a ride at Old Fork- sorry.

Some things have to be inferred even if they're not spelled out.

I appreciate your reply; it has offered me an insightful and positive view of the variances of critiquing skills. I certainly appreciated the added perspective and the anecdotes.

Unhitched, eh? :)

[Nateskate]

I appreciate your reply; it has offered me an insightful and positive view of the variances of critiquing skills. I certainly appreciated the added perspective and the anecdotes.

Unhitched, eh? :)

It's such an important lesson, I think. I love Tolkien. Most people that love Tolkien do so for the story, the Hobbits and other characters, descriptions of Gollum and Mordor. But Tolkien was a stickler for detail. His son chronicles how he kept getting hung up on the little stuff. And he would go back and rewrite entire chapters because of a detail that most wouldn't have cared about.

For instance, I try to consider "time" and how time is moving through the story. So, I'll make comments about the moon, whether it's a quarter moon or full moon. But Tolkien mapped out each event to the day and hour, which required monumental records, and research, and time lost.

Some people love him for those details. But the majority wouldn't have noticed. And the same is true for distance. There's a general way to accomplish that, and a stickler's way of doing that.

I might say "Weeks later, the next day, as they continued their journey." Passage of time is important, but few people (there are some) will take out a calculator: It takes a normal human so many hours to cover so many miles in this and that terrain.

OCD people will have a field day picking apart my novels- if they want to. But I think that once they realize that I was purpousely sacrificed "Perfect calculations" for the sake of finishing the story, they might be more forgiving. And most won't notice, or only as a fleeting thought that passes as they move forward to see what happens. A compelling story can for most cover a multitude of slight errors.

But we writers have to determine our philosophy- unless our editor decides for us. If it doesn't bother an expert trained to find problems, I'll be happy.

[penny manning]

I love Tolkien. Most people that love Tolkien do so for the story, the Hobbits and other characters, descriptions of Gollum and Mordor. But Tolkien was a stickler for detail. His son chronicles how he kept getting hung up on the little stuff. And he would go back and rewrite entire chapters because of a detail that most wouldn't have cared about.

Rewrite entire chapters! Whew! Now, that's dedication. My hat off and a bow to all whom do similarly. May I be as conscientious as Tolkien.

[Nateskate]

Rewrite entire chapters! Whew! Now, that's dedication. My hat off and a bow to all whom do similarly. May I be as conscientious as Tolkien.


I would say that it's a blessing to not be like Tolkien. He wrote three and four versions of chapters. Some of these are chronicled in "Return of the Shadow", "War of the Ring"...I forget the third one, though I have all three.

Unfortunately, in some ways I'm like Tolkien- not in a good way. He was working out variations of the story. Aragorn was called Trotter, and at first he was a Hobbit, then an Elf, then a Human- if memory serves me correctly. He would change the storyline entirely, like trying on shoes at Pennys.

My problem is more complex. It just takes me a long time to beat each chapter into shape. And that's cutting me some slack.